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.
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby ShivaS » 28 Oct 2010 10:22

put the new engine as aux power unit and then gradually use it as well into propulsion. liek the above picture of Lockheed tristar or VC-10 with two engines as dummy or DC 10 in its tail and then switch it on.
Actually I dont want any SCB things that will hold up the project, even if the MTB is very low to medium low, I would rather want it fly and maitain like MiG21 is done . Just numbers.
Remember what badmash Nawaz said about Thander, it can drop bombs too.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Pratyush » 28 Oct 2010 10:28

In my last post on this thread I had written about the very low end of the spectrum. Here I will write about the medium & high end of the capability. In this spectrum IAF will require both light and medium weight aircrafts. The type of aircraft envisaged by me are current for the next 20 to 25 years.

The aircraft will have to be multirole and at present the Tejas and it future versions will do the job well at the light weight of the spectrum. For the medium weight the MKI with upgrades is good enough for the next 20 to 25 years.

This does not take into consideration the potency of the SAM environment which may be present on the battle field.

The EW will have to be very strong super cruise and an ASEA is a must have in this spectrum. The engines will have to be indigenous and the aircrafts will have to be easy to maintain with high MTBF. With very high degree of sensor fusion.

A2A and A2G capability is a given. No of crew is left to the potential users.

If the SAM threat becomes very potent over the potential battle field. Then the IAF will need to consider either increasing its anti SAM capability many fold or completely move towards stealth and fifth generation.

When it comes to the stealth aircraft we are looking at the PAK FA and the home made AMCA. Again very high degree of sensor fusion and extreamly capable EW capability. Super cruise and internal weapons carraige is required.

Wether Kaveri or the propsed motor of the PAK FA is to be used will be left for the designers to decide.

The Number reguired for medium weight 300 approx
The number required for the light weight 600 approx.

This coupled with the COIN Ac discussed in the last post will give the IAF tac fleet of approx 1150.


In the next post I will discuss about the Regional bomber and the need for it.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Pratyush » 28 Oct 2010 10:29

ShivaS,

Well said.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8286
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Pratyush » 28 Oct 2010 11:01

The IAF as time goes by will start to need a regional bomber. The requirement may be to hit the “Strategic depth ” of the TSP, by hitting the terrorist training bases and individual leader hiding in Talibanistan.

Criuse missiles may seem to be an ideal solution for the job and for some of the targets will do the job. But some times it is important to kill the target with weapons that are cheaper then the target it self.

So I come to the regional bomber solution. It will use the skills acquired with the completion of the RTA and the MTA projects. It will also use a lot of off the shelf components with very little modifications.

Initiate the project from 2018 with the aim of having a working design by 2025.

The aircraft will need to have a combat radius of 2500 to 3000 Kms without refueling with a pay load of 12 tons and the ability to conduct precision attacks. It will have to be stealth, if it is to overfly over fly hostile territory along with reasonable immunity. We don't want to wake up an enemy an tell him that we are coming to kill him. :P

Numbers required 60 to 75.

In the same vein I will come to the area of Autonomous UCAV. The project will be an off shoot of the AMCA. Will use much of the capability developed for it. With a payload of around 2 tons. It should ideally be able to spend 4 to 6 hours on station at a 1000 Km radius. It will fly with preprogrammed targets or will be reprogrammed with targets of opportunity when flying over the target area. It should also have the ability to locate and kill any targets that it may find. Without the need for checking for approval. Think Terminator if you will. The project will have entered service by 2025 if a start has been made for the AMCA now.



The numbers required will be 25 to 30.

Am not looking at A2A capability for these platforms.

JMT.

PS:- I am not being fan boyish with my type of aircrafts. The Cpability to what I am asking for will be developed as we go along with our current and future projects. All we need to do learn will be skill required to intigerate it with the Platforms envisiged above.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Kersi D » 28 Oct 2010 11:57

shiv wrote:
When we look at numerical strength of air forces you find that no large air force in the world can afford "latest gen" in large numbers.


I had read somewhere that the ideal combination is
1) 25% aircraft would be obsolete and would/should be replaced in next few years. (say MiG 21M/MFs, un-upgraded MiG 27s & Jaguars of IAF)
2) 25% aircraft with be absolutely state-of-art aircraft (SU 30 MKI and upgraded Mirages)
3) 50% aircraft would be fairly modern but neither obsolete nor state-of-art aircraft.( MiG 21Bison, upgraded MiG 29s, MiG 27s and Jaguars)

Sound fairly logical to me. Based on this logic the IAF seems to be fairly well balanced.

I think our BR Jingo fighter should be aimed at the bulk 50%, modern but not gold plated. For air defence our Tejas (optimised for air defence) would be the best bet.

Kersi

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 28 Oct 2010 19:33

OK folks. Let us assume that we take Abhibhushan's requirement as the goal for the jingo aircraft. We are basically looking at a subsonic/transonic aircraft that can serve as a smart and capable day and night all weather mud mover.

Assuming a jet.

What sort of mainwings should it have? (Am assuming it will have a tailplane). Straight like Kiran?. Slightly swept back like Hawk? Delta is out. Swept back like HF 24/Hunter?

Should the wings be mounted "up on the shoulders" like Alpha jet (Anhedral drooped wings)? Or mid fuselage. Or should it be at the bottom of the fuselage pointing up (dihedral)?

Since I know nothing I am free to say whatever I like. I have read that with the drooping anhedral wing the CG of the fuselage acts like a pendulum making the plane rock (& roll :) ). Perhaps wing at bottom with dihedral would be better for periods of stable low altitude flight? Or would anhedral allow better rolling this way and that while weaving between mountaintops below the reach of S-300 radar?

I think a strong one piece wing would more easily be paced above or below the fuselage so a mid body wing may not be OK. Just a guess.

Any thoughts anyone? I guess the placement of the intakes would affect where you place the wings. Or is it vice versa?

Or is anyone designing a flying wing? :P

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Kersi D » 28 Oct 2010 20:33

shiv wrote:OK folks. Let us assume that we take Abhibhushan's requirement as the goal for the jingo aircraft. We are basically looking at a subsonic/transonic aircraft that can serve as a smart and capable day and night all weather mud mover.


The wings should be on the aircraft, not too fat away. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Jokes apart

Shiv let us overlook the shape and size of wings fuselage, tails, arse etc. Let us leave that to the nerds and geeks. Let us discuss brief performance

1) It must have high transonic speed AT LOW LEVELS to escape form the mullahs etc.
2) Some stealth
3) Good nav attack systems
4) Good and accurate weapon guidance systems like laser range finder, laser designator and marked target seeker etc. All in-built but should also be able to carry podded systems like Lightening or Damocles
5) Good overall low level performance
6) Two 30 mm cannons with at least 300 rounds per gun.
7) Must have 4 underwing and 2 under fuselage for upto 1000 lb each. 4 laser guided bombs
8) For self defence it should be able to carry 4 AAMs, infra red guided. Optional 2 BVR AAMs, active guidance
9) RAWS, MAWS, chaff / flare launchers
10) Built in ECM and ECCM equipment
11) Reasonably good data link with other aircrcaft flying the mission AND with the man on the ground whom they are supporting
12) Twin engined
13) Sufficient to attack any place in pakistan, WITHOUT being based too much in front
14) Sufficient to attack at least 1/3 of China.
15) In flight refuelling and buddy refuelling

I do not think that a Tejas sized aircraft can meet these requirements. Me think that a ground attack would be bigger & heavier than Tejas but with a lower top speed and lesser radar.

A HF 2015 Marut with 2 Improved Kaveri may do the trick

These should be based at
Gujarat. 1 squadron
Rajasthan 1 squadrons
Punjab & Haryana 3 squadrons
J&K (incl Leh) 3 squadrons
UP, Bihar and WB facing Nepal (read Dragon) 2 - 3 squadrons
Whole of NE, 3 squadrons

These will replace all the MiG 27s and Jaguars. These could also free the M 2000 into more sophisticated missions

Doc, these are my humble needs. I need the first squadron by 2013 and the two squadrons every year.

Regards
Kersi

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby bmallick » 28 Oct 2010 20:53

Shiv sir, do we intend to have internal storage of weapons. If so then a low mounted single wing piece would interfere with weapons stowage.
Also we should not try to put in all top of the line systems into it. KISS principle should be followed.

If stealth is not a very high priority then maybe we can have two side mounted engines like the Buccaneer, which would provide ample space in fuselage. Also the engines can be Adour that we already make. Also why not do away with a radar altogether and put in a optical based system in the nose itself. Maybe we can have small radar system for navigation etc. The reason I am saying to do away with radar is because its primary role is ground attack. In places where we might have enemy air activity provide air cover.

Abhibhushan
BRFite
Posts: 207
Joined: 28 Sep 2005 20:56
Location: Chennai

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Abhibhushan » 28 Oct 2010 22:13

May I humbly remind the BR Jingos that the weapon systems we need for operations in Arunachal / Himachal and for operations in Pak Punjab are quite different. It would be almost impossible to optimise one aircraft for both roles. Similarly, the needs for an optimised aircraft operating over Ladak / Takla Makan would have to posess unique qualities. One also needs to remember that no other air force in the world (except for India and China) would be required to operate in these environments. No one else has the incentive to develop systems optimised for such environment. We would never find it on a shelf to buy off. If we want it, we shall have to make it. A wonderful/sad opportunity/situation!

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4555
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cain Marko » 29 Oct 2010 02:08

nachiket wrote:CM, Shiv's constraint is very stringent. We need to be able to manufacture the engine from scratch. Without importing anything. Is this the case with the AL-31? Your second idea sounds more plausible.


Isn't that what they do at Koraput? Last I checked, they were talking about making the entire engine from "raw materials" - locally sourced I presume.

In either case, if the AL 31 is out of contention, then stick the kaveri into a MiG-21ish design and see what we get. I think the current weight of the Kaveri is similar to the Tumanskys, although there may be certain dimensional differences that might prove to be rather sticky. But this should be definitely achievable, iirc, the Russkis had played around with a MiG-21 based on the Rd-33 (similar to the Kaveri).

Make some novel changes to the airframe; use composites to reduce weight (at least in secondary structures), allow for greater internal fuel capacity if possible and add some plumbing for IFR. If they can increase internal fuel capacity and payload capacity to about 2500kg/3500kg, it would be a v.potent bird. Empty weight should not exceed 6000kg, and should ideally stay ~ 5500kg. I think series production of such a variant should be possible within 5 years. By then the baseline Kaveri should be ready as well. As it currently stands the Kaveri seems to have achieved most parameters but is heavier than stated goal (it is still lighter than the Tumanskys though).

CM

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Victor » 29 Oct 2010 06:23

Abhibhusan has given his idea of a practical yet lethal and immediately doable "warplane" a lot of thought tempered with experience, so I decided to put my interpretation of it on paper, er.. screen.

This version of the Jingo Fighter is Arunachal-Himachal specific for low to medium altitudes (if one could call 5,000 ft ASL+ valleys "low"). In this environment, speed is not as important as ability to acquire target, attack with precision quickly, avoid the mountain in front of you by banking sharply and scoot, all in a few seconds, aided in large part by knowing the terrain like the back of your hand (non-pilot folks who remember 633 Squadron will understand this). Neither is stealth important because radar is largely blind in the valleys. This is all conjecture of course, since the closest I have come to piloting a plane is FS2000.

To carry a meaningful load, JF-1 must have stronger wings and my idea was to give it a slighly cranked dihedral with a thicker center section to support hardpoints. This bent wing should also give the plane better turning capability by increasing controllability which should be OK since it is not a training plane any more and a fighter jock will like it better (AFAIK, trainers make it difficult for rookies to over-control the airplane).

The forward fuselage is narrower to accomodate one pilot instead of two side-by-side and the wing is moved back a little to compensate for CG. This will reduce weight overall to make way for a more powerful engine (Adour?) with larger intakes which however should not add appreciably to the cross-section. Am not sure how this will affect radar etc but should be OK. AA missiles on wingtips but these can be wingtip tanks instead with the missiles on the wing hardpoints. GSh23 in belly centerline. The undercarriage is more rugged and taller with thicker tyres to give the plane better clearance if rough landings are needed in the Advanced Landing Grounds.

Image

Not surprisingly, this is very much like Frogfoot Lite.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2010 06:41

Victor wrote:This version of the Jingo Fighter is Arunachal-Himachal specific for low to medium altitudes (if one could call 5,000 ft ASL+ valleys "low"). In this environment, speed is not as important as ability to acquire target, attack with precision quickly, avoid the mountain in front of you by banking sharply and scoot, all in a few seconds, aided in large part by knowing the terrain like the back of your hand (non-pilot folks who remember 633 Squadron will understand this). Neither is stealth important because radar is largely blind in the valleys. This is all conjecture of course, since the closest I have come to piloting a plane is FS2000.

To carry a meaningful load, JF-1 must have stronger wings and my idea was to give it a slighly cranked dihedral with a thicker center section to support hardpoints. This bent wing should also give the plane better turning capability by increasing controllability which should be OK since it is not a training plane any more and a fighter jock will like it better (AFAIK, trainers make it difficult for rookies to over-control the airplane). Not surprisingly, this is very much like Frogfoot Lite.


8) Nice post and image Victor.

I am just wondering if the same aircraft could be optimized for a high altitude role by extending the wingspan and therefore the wing area to reduce wing loading. The business of "avoiding the mountain in front of you" is critically dependent on altitude and the density of the air. At 15,000 feet all aircraft are not equal in their ability to avoid that 18.000 foot peak 1 km ahead of them.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby bmallick » 29 Oct 2010 06:46

Victor sir, we need to discount wingtip tanks, as those would add extra weight far from the central axis of the aircraft which would make roll response sluggish. (Angular momentum stuff...)

Shiv sir, would it be possible to add a canard in the nose which would provide pitch control. A pitching force far ahead and away from CG should produce good pitch response.

Also a question for the guru's. Let say a aircraft has canard, main wings & horizontal tails as well. Is it possible to use the canard & H-Tail in conjunction so as to change the net amount of lift being produced and increase/ decrease wing loading.
For example, at high altitudes the canard & H-Tail too produce positive lift and add to the lift being produced by the wing. Thus the wing loading decreases. However for low altitude flight, canard & H-Tail produce negative lift thus decreasing the net lift produced & increasing the wing loading. This might be a crude way of sort of getting variable geometry effect.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2010 07:14

Mallick _ I am no guru here, Your guess is as good as mine and I am certain every horizontal surface provided can act as a lifting surface.

You had earlier mentioned an internal weapons bay. I do not have much of an opinion for or against that, but I think that for the role envisaged in this case stealth may not be so high on the list. Secondly an internal bay inevitably leads to a fatter fuselage with more drag unless (I think) you achieve some fancy wing-body moulding. Just a guess. Having said that an internal bay to house cannon with lots of ammunition may be a good idea. Who knows which direction things may take. We may get cannons that can fire bursts of 5 to 10 shells, each with a small head for homing and winglets for guidance. The HF 24 had an internal weapons bay for an unguided rocket launcher rack. Why not have that - anticipating smart/guided rockets.

Daedalus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 29 Aug 2008 00:57

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Daedalus » 29 Oct 2010 07:22

This is not related to the current discussion. But since this is the Design your own fighter thread. I would like to bring these pics to your attention.

PIC 1
PIC 2
PIC 3
PIC 4
PIC 5

This thing looks sexy form all the angles.

I am not an expert in aircraft design, so can someone tell me if this can be combined with IAF requirements for AMCA.

Thanks in advance.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2010 07:40

Daedalus wrote:This is not related to the current discussion. But since this is the Design your own fighter thread. I would like to bring these pics to your attention.

PIC 1
PIC 2
PIC 3
PIC 4
PIC 5

This thing looks sexy form all the angles.

I am not an expert in aircraft design, so can someone tell me if this can be combined with IAF requirements for AMCA.

Thanks in advance.


Wrong thread Daedalus. Should go in the PAKFA or Newbie thread.

I presume you know who the mythological Daedalus was? :)

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vardhank » 29 Oct 2010 08:35

Great post, Victor.
Should we be looking at the A-10 Thunderbolt as an example of an attack jet like this? I imagine we'd need pretty good armour for CAS roles. Also, maybe the wings at the bottom, with air intakes slightly further behind, to protect the engine? A lightly swept straight wing is probably simplest and best for this low-cost fighter, but any aero gurus out there who can come up with a more apt design?
Do we have any comparative data on the Adour's performance vs the Kaveri at high altitudes?
What flight characteristics would you look for? Low-level stability, very low-speed agility (not fancy manoeuvres but get-away-from-that-mountain stuff) and extremely good climb and dive rates. An afterburner's probably required too, to escape. FBW is probably required, to combat weird winds up in mountains, no?

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vardhank » 29 Oct 2010 08:41

Actually, maybe even a low-loading trapezoidal wing? (Um, and at the grave risk of sounding like a perfect idiot, how about looking at aerobatic plane designs, since we need that extreme manoeuvreability?)

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2010 09:11

vardhank wrote:Actually, maybe even a low-loading trapezoidal wing? (Um, and at the grave risk of sounding like a perfect idiot, how about looking at aerobatic plane designs, since we need that extreme manoeuvreability?)

Biplane. Would be innovative and unique if nothing else.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vardhank » 29 Oct 2010 09:53

Thought about that actually :oops: but would that work at get-out-of-here speeds? would love one, if it could work. anyway, best to stick to a development of the kiran or other existing aircraft

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby munna » 29 Oct 2010 10:00

vardhank wrote:Thought about that actually :oops: but would that work at get-out-of-here speeds? would love one, if it could work. anyway, best to stick to a development of the kiran or other existing aircraft

Ruggedized HJT-36 can be a good option. With an indigenous engine and Tejas components geared towards attack role it may become a decent CAS .

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2010 10:22

vardhank wrote:Thought about that actually :oops: but would that work at get-out-of-here speeds? would love one, if it could work. anyway, best to stick to a development of the kiran or other existing aircraft


There has only ever been one jet powered biplane. That apart, if it is a single engined turboprop, the cannon armament will have to go on the wings. Biplane is out IMO.

In any case if we are looking at higher altitudes, jet engine is the way to go.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2010 10:27

Kersi D wrote:
Shiv let us overlook the shape and size of wings fuselage, tails, arse etc. Let us leave that to the nerds and geeks. Let us discuss brief performance

1) It must have high transonic speed AT LOW LEVELS to escape form the mullahs etc.
2) Some stealth
3) Good nav attack systems
4) Good and accurate weapon guidance systems like laser range finder, laser designator and marked target seeker etc. All in-built but should also be able to carry podded systems like Lightening or Damocles
5) Good overall low level performance
6) Two 30 mm cannons with at least 300 rounds per gun.
7) Must have 4 underwing and 2 under fuselage for upto 1000 lb each. 4 laser guided bombs
8 ) For self defence it should be able to carry 4 AAMs, infra red guided. Optional 2 BVR AAMs, active guidance
9) RAWS, MAWS, chaff / flare launchers
10) Built in ECM and ECCM equipment
11) Reasonably good data link with other aircrcaft flying the mission AND with the man on the ground whom they are supporting
12) Twin engined
13) Sufficient to attack any place in pakistan, WITHOUT being based too much in front
14) Sufficient to attack at least 1/3 of China.
15) In flight refuelling and buddy refuelling

I do not think that a Tejas sized aircraft can meet these requirements. Me think that a ground attack would be bigger & heavier than Tejas but with a lower top speed and lesser radar.


No serious disagreement here. But we must discuss wings, bust, arse etc. :(( :D

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Kersi D » 29 Oct 2010 10:30

shiv wrote:
Kersi D wrote:
Shiv let us overlook the shape and size of wings fuselage, tails, arse etc. Let us leave that to the nerds and geeks. Let us discuss brief performance

1) It must have high transonic speed AT LOW LEVELS to escape form the mullahs etc.
2) Some stealth
3) Good nav attack systems
4) Good and accurate weapon guidance systems like laser range finder, laser designator and marked target seeker etc. All in-built but should also be able to carry podded systems like Lightening or Damocles
5) Good overall low level performance
6) Two 30 mm cannons with at least 300 rounds per gun.
7) Must have 4 underwing and 2 under fuselage for upto 1000 lb each. 4 laser guided bombs
8 ) For self defence it should be able to carry 4 AAMs, infra red guided. Optional 2 BVR AAMs, active guidance
9) RAWS, MAWS, chaff / flare launchers
10) Built in ECM and ECCM equipment
11) Reasonably good data link with other aircrcaft flying the mission AND with the man on the ground whom they are supporting
12) Twin engined
13) Sufficient to attack any place in pakistan, WITHOUT being based too much in front
14) Sufficient to attack at least 1/3 of China.
15) In flight refuelling and buddy refuelling

I do not think that a Tejas sized aircraft can meet these requirements. Me think that a ground attack would be bigger & heavier than Tejas but with a lower top speed and lesser radar.


No serious disagreement here. But we must discuss wings, bust, arse etc. :(( :D


Bust and arse, YES. But why wings ????

K

PS

Are you referring to aircraft or ladies. Hic.. hic.. I am totalllly konpfused.. hic.. hic...hic...

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby bmallick » 29 Oct 2010 11:01

Kesri -- "Bust and arse, YES. But why wings ????'

Well Kesri sir....there might be other beauties waiting on the wings.....

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2010 20:30

vardhank wrote:A lightly swept straight wing is probably simplest and best for this low-cost fighter, but any aero gurus out there who can come up with a more apt design?
Do we have any comparative data on the Adour's performance vs the Kaveri at high altitudes?
What flight characteristics would you look for? Low-level stability, very low-speed agility (not fancy manoeuvres but get-away-from-that-mountain stuff) and extremely good climb and dive rates. An afterburner's probably required too, to escape. FBW is probably required, to combat weird winds up in mountains, no?


OK

Lightly swept straight wing it is. What engine?

One engine? two engines?

What weights are we looking at?

A very cursory look at engine power and weights tell me that one R 25 in MiG 21 or 2 Adour in Jaguar can support 11-15 tons. I would have thought that a full up weight of 15 tons is a "medium weight" aircraft. Would appreciate opinions.

For some reason the name Adour keeps coming to my mind. No informed rationale whatsoever. 2 Adours?

What weights are we looking at. Here is an area where aerodynamics and design are critical and my inputs are least important and to be looked at last. What payload? What range?

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 29 Oct 2010 21:07

Victor sir,
Great post and a good design... My only suggestion here would be to mount the cannon in the nose, a la Hornet, along the axis of the plane... so that the pilot can fire of a good burst with reasonable accracy just by aiming his nose at the target.. in the small tight spaces in the valleys this could help lessen the pilot load... I would also lead to more space in the belly for mud moving... JMO..

Also we could move the wing tip missiles to be over wing like the jaguar...

if the MTOW is around let's say 10T then with a single Adour mk102, we would be very close to the performance of the Hawk with a bit more power due to a better engine...
If we put the R25 then its about 20% more powerful than a single Adour, so the MTOW could be moved to about 12T...
These numbers are hypothesized...

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby bmallick » 29 Oct 2010 21:49

Shiv sir,

Two Adour engines in a 10-12 ton craft would mean there's ample reserve power at hand for great acceleration. This excess power would also mean good hot & high operational performance. This also means that the same craft can be used for deep strikes too. Also such power would mean quick dash to area of operation for time critical CAS, which I believe is always needed as early as possible to save as many lives on the ground.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Victor » 30 Oct 2010 01:16

@Bala, that is a good observation about reserving the centerline for bombs. So instead of a belly pack, the gun can be moved to the nose area but not along the centerline coz of nose wheel well above which the pilot sits. With the narrowed fuselage, it will fit if offset to one side and angled a bit. And if the spent cartridges are ejected at the proper angle, they should avoid being sucked into the jet intake or hitting any of the armed ordnance! Here is a side view.

Image

What is the reason for having the overwing AAMs? Wingtip rocket launches will help tail surfaces avoid the blast. In the Jag, the tailplane is below the wing.

The thing to note is that this cannot be a "mud mover" in the Frogfoot or Jag class because it is simply too small. It is however just right to stop a column on a mountain pass and play havoc with heliborne or para assaults. Shiv also makes a good point in stating that "extra" engine power should be looked at as a means of quick ingress and egress (or clearing a mountaintop at short notice) rather than being used to haul more hardware.

The actual action will probably be carried out at slow speeds--perhaps as slow as 250-300 mph. In an open area like the desert or plains that would be suicide but in a deep mountain valley, it gives the enemy only a split second to respond before the plane has disappeared behind the next mountain.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby bmallick » 30 Oct 2010 07:42

Victor, as mentioned earlier having extra power would mean that in desert and plains it can keep higher up easily and avoid manpads.

One oberservation, having the gun at the position you have shown, may result into gun smoke being ingested into the air intake, F-5 had that problem earlier and the gun position had to be changed to prevent that.

However we can have the gun in the centerline just as Bala has said and move the nose wheel off-center. There is nothing which says that the nose wheel has to be in dead center.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2010 08:15

IIRC the hunter used to have 2 "pods" to collect spent casings behind the cannon ports on each side. I don't know if aircraft invariably jettison spent casings. They collect them and take them home.

The most likely cannon on this jingo jet will be the GSh 23 which is a twin barrel and fairly compact affair that can be put in various innovative places where fumes need not get ingested by the intakes.

Here is an area where my ignorance is deeper than normal. What sort of sensors/radar are we looking at? Does a Litening convert a Kiran into a PGM toting jet?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7987
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby nachiket » 30 Oct 2010 08:35

shiv wrote:
The most likely cannon on this jingo jet will be the GSh 23 which is a twin barrel and fairly compact affair that can be put in various innovative places where fumes need not get ingested by the intakes.


Considering that this will be purely a ground attack jet, would a Gsh-30 be better? The challenge would be finding enough space for all the ammo.

Here is an area where my ignorance is deeper than normal. What sort of sensors/radar are we looking at? Does a Litening convert a Kiran into a PGM toting jet?


A terrain following radar would be helpful in the mountains methinks. But I'm even more of a novice than you. Since we have limited payload and hardpoints here, where do we stick the Litening pod?

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2010 09:18

Do we make GSh 30 in India?

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Kersi D » 30 Oct 2010 11:04

bmallick wrote:Shiv sir,

Two Adour engines in a 10-12 ton craft would mean there's ample reserve power at hand for great acceleration. This excess power would also mean good hot & high operational performance. This also means that the same craft can be used for deep strikes too. Also such power would mean quick dash to area of operation for time critical CAS, which I believe is always needed as early as possible to save as many lives on the ground.


I prefer 2 engines for ground attack

K

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vardhank » 30 Oct 2010 12:57

Victor,
Nice one again. However, I'd make one change, if it's technically feasible - make the nose as stubby and droopy as possible, to give the pilot the best view of the ground. If we can move the cockpit further forward as well, so much the better.

Would a gimbal-mounted cannon work? Or even a smaller machine gun - great for making infantry keep their heads down. Another possibility, a gimbal-mounted laser designator, so these small, agile planes can target-mark for heavier fighters up in the sky.

And two engines definite - there's no gliding safely to earth (or even ejecting with much ease) up among the hills, if one engine goes out.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 30 Oct 2010 15:44

Victor Sir,
Sorry, forgot that tiny detail. What with the tail planes being higher, there is a good chance that whatever disturbances the missiles create would definitely affect airflow the tail planes...
About the nose wheel issue,if we could pull the nose wheel below the pilot, we could leave the nose free for sensors and the gun... Definitely accept that the JF-1 will not be of the same class as the frogfoot or the Warthog... But i don't believe that capability is required to us now..

The Gsh 30 is a heavier canon with a heavier recoil, which could drastically affect our light-weight JF-1...

And about the engines, can't we earmark some percentage of the extra power for hauling more ammo... The rest of the excess power can be kept as power reserve...

Nachiket wrote:A terrain following radar would be helpful in the mountains methinks. But I'm even more of a novice than you. Since we have limited payload and hardpoints here, where do we stick the Litening pod?

why not do it like the Fighting Falcon, place it below the intake, permanently... This should do the trick for the pod placement and also save the hard points for armament...

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Kersi D » 30 Oct 2010 16:47

Armour plating to protect against at least 7.62 mm rounds if not 12.7 mm AA.

Protection against MANPADS, missile warning systems and chaff / flare launchers

K

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2010 19:25

OK It looks like the DARIN II and DARIN III specs for he Jaguar will meet all the specs for night vision, HOTAS and targeting. Add the terrain following radar to that. This is doable within India.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7987
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby nachiket » 30 Oct 2010 23:14

shiv wrote:Do we make GSh 30 in India?

I don't know. But the MKI uses it as well. Would be prudent to start making it if we don't.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 31 Oct 2010 00:28

Another approach here could be to use the Marut as our base fighter and move ahead from there...
A few things that, in my view, that needs to be done to give the Marut a modern day make over are:
1) Airframe- Introduce composites in the structure and strengthen the airframe to add more hard point
Also tweak the design for good transonic handling.
2) Re-engine- Strap 2 Adours from the Jaguars in place of the Orpheus engines or we could use a single Kaveri, if available.
3) Sensor Package- Fix the entire set of sensors that were installed on the upgraded MiG 27. This should enable the platform to be PGM Capable(i guess).


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chetonzz, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, rajkumar and 63 guests