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.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17260
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby RamaY » 19 May 2015 19:46

wet-dream alert 8)

After reading the LCA dhaga I want to design my own phiter(s) for India.

First I want to shop around the warald for a 25,000 lbf without afterburner engine that can be co-produced under Make In India. I would offer a 1000 engine contract for whoever is willing to manufacture in India.

Then I would build two fighters around it within India. One a single engine fighter and another twin-engine fighter. I am presuming that we have the know-how to build a fighter around a stable/well-tested engine.

I hope to have the twin-engine fighter to be developed in pure stealth mode in A2A/SEAD mode (internal weapons) and don't care much about stealth when going A2G mode. I would build this "stealth" mode to have upto 10-12 missiles (of A2A/ARM) in internal bay which comes to about 2T payload. The rest of the weight can go into all kinds of electronic suite of Avengers kind.

In non-Stealth mode I hope this fighter can handle 4-5T armaments, either 4 1-t smart bombs or 2-MiniBrahmos missiles plus 2-4 A2A missiles.

And I want to make 200 single engine and 300 twin-engine fighters in next 10yrs. I will call the first one LCA and second MCA for H&D purposes. Let Su-30MKI and PAKFA projects go along as planned.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35888
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby SaiK » 30 Nov 2015 02:25

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _Su-34.jpg

raise those engines up even with the wings (like pak-fa or better still rafale), flatten the intakes under the wings with a lateral s-shape (rafaliski), and angle those rudders 60*. you have a high combat radius, highly stealthy platform. now, you need those latest and greatest pak-fa/raptoriski gizmos inside along with super permeable skins, with internal deflectors.

pay me royalty thru this post if you chose my design.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby NRao » 12 May 2016 01:29

SaiK wrote:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Russian_Air_Force_Sukhoi_Su-34.jpg

raise those engines up even with the wings (like pak-fa or better still rafale), flatten the intakes under the wings with a lateral s-shape (rafaliski), and angle those rudders 60*. you have a high combat radius, highly stealthy platform. now, you need those latest and greatest pak-fa/raptoriski gizmos inside along with super permeable skins, with internal deflectors.

pay me royalty thru this post if you chose my design.


Here it is:

http://www.defenceaviation.com/wp-conte ... A_FGFA.jpg

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9531
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby UlanBatori » 14 May 2016 22:04

Take out the pilot's brain and replace it with a cellphone and u have essentially the F-35. Take the pilot out entirely and u have a UCAV capable to sustained 12Gs. Terrain-following at Mach 0.5 through the canyons of POK or North Kerala (aka "Tibet") as well as supersonic cruise at Mach 2.5. Of course you need engines... :((

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gyan » 14 May 2016 22:13

shiv wrote:
vic wrote:We should produce CAS version of HTT-40 and LCA especially for Himalayas.



Here is what Air Commodore Tikoo Sen wrote on page 1 of this every thread in 2010
viewtopic.php?p=968744#p968744http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=968744#p968744

I must thank the good doctor for prescribing just what an old fighter jock would love. While all of you go all out to design a 5th gen ++ super duper fighter, I want to take a detour and come up with some thing that my pongo friends would love to see in the sky.

There is one huge battlefield that might one day call me in for offensive air support which I am unable to provide today. I need an aircraft that can operate over Wallong and Along and perhaps a hundred kilometres north of it for releasing weapons in marginal visibility and if possible even by night. I need an aircraft that will take off from Leh or Chshul with one and a half tons of ordnance and be able to operate comfortably with full load at 20000 feet or more. I want an aircraft that can have a radius of action of 200 km flying at 15000 feet above sea level.

Let me now design this beast.

Take a basic Kiran. Retain the wings/tail. Build it as light as possible using composites. Redesign the main body for a single pilot and lots of internal fuel. Give it an internal bay for carrying about 50 x 68mm or 57mm unguided rockets and four hard points fit for 350 kg class loads. Give it a light contour mapping / imaging radar slaved to an HMS. Replace the 2 machine guns of the Kiran Mk 2 with one GSh23. Give it a glass cockpit and a DARIN III fit. Give it an integral laser target designator. Power it with an unreheated Adour (as used in the Hawk). Play around with the wing structure a little to improve its low speed turning performance. See if the RCS can be reduced by tinkering with the intakes. If possible, give it one or two short range light air to air missiles carried over the wing like the Jaguar. Give it a self defence electronic suit. If the Adour is unable to lift all this load then make it really an overpowered beast by fitting an unreheated Kavery!

Produce it in 36 months. Test and certify it in the next 24 months. Produce it in large numbers. In 1962, we could not / did not use offensive air power. Let there not be a repeat of that situation.

PS. I do not foresee a dense air defence air presence in the projected hostile area. If one comes along, I shall need top cover by the air dominance fighters you all are designing.


LCA with Kaveri Engine would be able to do most of it.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 23 Sep 2016 04:26

shiv wrote:Here is what Air Commodore Tikoo Sen wrote on page 1 of this every thread in 2010
There is one huge battlefield that might one day call me in for offensive air support which I am unable to provide today. I need an aircraft that can operate over Wallong and Along and perhaps a hundred kilometres north of it for releasing weapons in marginal visibility and if possible even by night. I need an aircraft that will take off from Leh or Chshul with one and a half tons of ordnance and be able to operate comfortably with full load at 20000 feet or more. I want an aircraft that can have a radius of action of 200 km flying at 15000 feet above sea level.


Paging Air commodore Tikoo Sen. Sir, I share your vision of building a desi AMX international equivalent using the non-afterburning Kaveri. There are a couple of ideas behind this thought experiment. I contend that:
1. We need a fighter for armed reconnaissance, close air support, and light strike role.
2. With due respect sir, I don't think a modified Kiran, or for that matter the armed hawk (that HAL is suggesting) is underpowered to take off from Leh with enough fuel for the hang-time and 1.5 Ton payload that you suggest.
3. Although we cannot use the Kiran, we can reuse parts of other Indian fighters to come up with our design.
4. I want to make use of the Kaveri engine so that we can gain the critical knowledge of fielding it.

Here is what I am thinking of:
1. Jet powered for high altitude operations
2. Wing design for high altitude low speed handling: a nimble slope hugger. This is the difficult part. I am leaning towards Marut's wings with automatic slats (too thin). TWR of 0.7-0.8. This should allow take off from ALGs and evade shoulder-launched S2A missiles.
4. Aerial protection comes from hugging the mountains. No radar, A2A capability restricted to self-defense using 2 close range missiles. Maneuverability limited to -3/+6 Gs. RCS not important. Bullet-proof tub for single pilot. Good self-protection suite against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
5. Simple rugged design for operations and maintenance at ALGs. So good self diagnostic tools, all metal construction (some parts could be composite). Statically stable aircraft. Manual controls.
7. Internal gun for straffing, rockets, guided and unguided ammunition
8. Max speed: ~650 kmph. Cruise speed: ~500 kmph. Stall speed: ~220 kmph.
9. Inflight refueling capability.

Would you be interested in this thought process?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Sep 2016 05:49

indranilroy wrote:4. I want to make use of the Kaveri engine so that we can gain the critical knowledge of fielding it.


How would Tejas with Kaveri fair in this ?

Strike Payload : 1500 kg
A to A Payload : One Astra Mk.I = 250 kg
One 700 litre fuel tank

Keep composites too in case we are not importing, OR change it to metal in case we are importing.

Keep FBW for lessening Pilot work.

In emergency to reach the point Pilot can use afterburning OR in case or escaping the afterburning can be used.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 23 Sep 2016 11:19

The aerial prowess of LCA is to fight aerial dogfights, not to fly low and slow on the mountain slopes. I don't want to pay the price of being able to fly 1.6M, eighteen degrees STR, etc. I am trying to draw the basic outlines of an A-10 equivalent for the mountains. Its MTOW would be around 10 Tons and we can reuse whatever we can from Indian planes. However, a more broader question is:
1. Does one need a A-10 for our mountains? A high flying UAV can achieve the same while staying out of harms way.

For the plains, a more powerful armed version of the HTT-40 is the way to go. However, this will not suffice for higher altitudes. So, can we arrive at the requirements specifications. For this I want to talk to a man who has flown in those areas and can define the requirements.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 05 Oct 2016 17:56

Why not a Silent LCA Mk-2?
Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 19 Oct 2016 02:33

Actually this one's a more refined design. Have side and front views too...
The spine won't be too prominent, on each side will be conformal fuel tanks blending into the wings.

Silent LCA Mk 2
Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 19 Oct 2016 02:54

Gagan, Let us refine this further. Is this drawn to scale? What tool are you using?

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Oct 2016 03:17

^^^"For the plains, a more powerful armed version of the HTT-40 is the way to go."

We have the Jaguar and it can carry the GBU-97/105 which we have bought. What would a HTT4o do differently ?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 19 Oct 2016 03:17

Not to scale .
Al MS Paint onlee...

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 19 Oct 2016 03:20

A YF-23 esque single engined planeform...
Rear like the F-35...
Instead of a rudderless delta, the two tilted vanes can be horizontal stabilizers cum rudders
Internal weapons bay on the side and below.
Landing gear will be located on the wing instead of within the empennage
Oval / pentagonal cross section with flat/gently curving bottom
Last edited by Gagan on 19 Oct 2016 03:27, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cosmo_R » 19 Oct 2016 03:24

On the subject of HTT 40, this article seems to indicate the IAF tried to kill the project in favor of Pilatus.

My thought is why if LM is willing to move its lien from DFW to India for an order of 100 a/c, why Pilatus was not enticed/forced to do the same for 70 plus some 100+ more?

This MII thing seems to involve people asleep at the wheel or deciding under the influence of bribes :)

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... f-3007990/

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 19 Oct 2016 03:39

Gagan wrote:Not to scale .
Al MS Paint onlee...

You have skills. May I borrow your skills to draw a Mk2 I have in my mind? I want to start with current Mk2 and refine as we go. Possible?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 19 Oct 2016 03:41

yes of course
Lets do it...

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 19 Oct 2016 04:19

Do you have a drawing of just LCA Mk2 minus the tail?

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 19 Oct 2016 04:46

We can use this, it has 3 views. With a hat tip and due apologies to the original artist.
Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 19 Oct 2016 07:56

Yes, that would be a good start.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Kakarat » 19 Oct 2016 11:00

Gagan wrote:Actually this one's a more refined design. Have side and front views too...
The spine won't be too prominent, on each side will be conformal fuel tanks blending into the wings.

Silent LCA Mk 2
Image


This is my wishlist for LCA Mk2 which I had posted on LCA Thread

Kakarat wrote:In my views since IAF has accepted to Tejas MK1A and if the french really help ready Kaveri with 90KN, most of the current issues in Tejas will be solved

So ADA should consider Redesigning the LCA Mk2 from just being a bigger Mk1 to a semi 5th generation aircraft. With new intake, wider fuselage, Smaller Twin all moving vertical stabiliser (like PAK FA) and if possible limited internal weapons

If ADA's manpower is increased and private companies are involved for components development from the design and prototype development stage there should be no problem in simultaneously developing both LCA Mk2 and AMCA. In fact LCA Mk2 will aid AMCA development


Your MS paint skills are extraordinary

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 21 Oct 2016 19:03

I did some changes, as below...
Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 21 Oct 2016 19:23

J-20 back
Chaff / Flare dispensers?
Image

Rammpal
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 23 Sep 2016 12:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rammpal » 22 Oct 2016 06:50

"..First I want to shop around the warald for a 25,000 lbf without afterburner engine that can be co-produced under Make In India. I would offer a 1000 engine contract for whoever is willing to manufacture in India..."

That's 11.25 tonne equivalent thrust.

What if engine on offer is a tad heavier, less fuel efficient, TBO of 100 hours, and needs to be scrapped after 1000 hours, but, completely made in India - 1000%, and done with local talent only ?

F 414 overall compression ratio is about 13 or so, no better than typical performance grade piston engine.
i.e.: not too difficult to match that type of thermal efficiency.

Deal ? :)

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3493
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby JayS » 22 Oct 2016 15:46

Gov wrote:"

F 414 overall compression ratio is about 13 or so, no better than typical performance grade piston engine.
i.e.: not too difficult to match that type of thermal efficiency.


What What?? :-? :-?

Rammpal
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 23 Sep 2016 12:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rammpal » 23 Oct 2016 07:01

^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio, vis-a-vis, F 414's pressure ration 30:1, i.e.: equivalent comp. ratio of a little over 10, depending upon prevailing ingested air conditions.

Also,

Mil thrust is abt. 57800 N, at 77kg/s mass flow, i.e.: average thrust from 1 kg air mass flow = 750 N, yes ?

i.e.: gas speed = 750 m/s.

And, That's what we need to train our eyes on.

Wrt to performance, LCA is a beautiful babe, yes ?
All she lacks is a good(high density) thrust generating System.

And why is TBO or overall 'engine' life so critical ??
Last edited by Indranil on 24 Oct 2016 09:31, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: User id changed to more human sounding name in accordance to forum rules. To request an alternate user id, use the forum feedback thread.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 24 Oct 2016 09:50

Gagan wrote:I did some changes, as below...
Image

Gagan sir, I am trying to keep the plane as aerodynamically similar to Mk2 as possible.

Hence I would like to keep the aerodynamic center of the vertical tails as close to the original one as possible, especially on the longitudinal axis.

Also, there is a discrepancy in your drawing with respect to the inlets. If we continue to have the channel to dump the boundary layer, then there will be no DSI bump, and vice versa. Because I want to keep the development cycle as small as possible, I would not do for a DSI. The spacing between the fuselage and the inner wall of the inlet would provide the channel to dump the boundary layer above the wing and below the fuselage. Something similar to the first AMCA wind tunnel model.

Image

I have read a few papers from NAL/ADA studying Y intakes with rectangular mouths. Although these were scaled down studies, I believe an intake for LCA should have rectangular mouths with dimensions of 25 X 50 cm.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 24 Oct 2016 09:52

Rammpal wrote:^https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio, vis-a-vis, F 414's pressure ration 30:1, i.e.: equivalent comp. ratio of a little over 10, depending upon prevailing ingested air conditions.

Also,

Mil thrust is abt. 57800 N, at 77kg/s mass flow, i.e.: average thrust from 1 kg air mass flow = 750 N, yes ?

i.e.: gas speed = 750 m/s.

And, That's what we need to train our eyes on.

Wrt to performance, LCA is a beautiful babe, yes ?
All she lacks is a good(high density) thrust generating System.

And why is TBO or overall 'engine' life so critical ??

Please write some sense. I don't think you understand what you are arguing about.

Rammpal
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 23 Sep 2016 12:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rammpal » 24 Oct 2016 11:57

Within the context of this thread, I'm proposing a thrust producing system which is not a traditional turbojet engine.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3493
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Oct 2016 16:43

^^ You cant just compare A jet engine with a piston engine based on the Compression Ratio. First of all both operate on different thermal cycles, Otto/Diesel and Brayton respectively. Second, reciprocating or even centrifugal compressors can definitely produce larger PR as compared to axial compressor, but the they cannot handle the kind of airflow that axial compressors can handle. I mean you surely can have a radial engine or a turbojet with centrifugal compressor with equivalent performance but then the frontal area that engine will have will offer so much drag that it will be practically impossible to touch high Mach numbers.

There are indeed engines which have axial low pressure compressor followed by centrifugal compressor at high pressure stage (since by that time the volume of air has reduced to more manageable level), typically in turboshaft engines, but they are again not very powerful and mass flow rate is less. Plus the compactness offered by centrifugal compressors is a key advantage there. Not so for bigger engines. However there are concepts where LP axial compressor is followed by reciprocating compressors + Engine module, which will combine HPC + Combustor together. I have had discussed this one with some of my collegues some time ago. But it will not be seen in practice for some time to come.

So basically for given power output axial compressor based engines offer foar far more compact solution than a piston engine could offer. Compare the sizes of 80MW Wärtsilä diesel engines to some 400+MW GE H series Gas Turbine power plant, you will get the idea. While on the ground or on ship its not a big deal, in air it is the only deal that matters.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 24 Oct 2016 17:40

Indranil roy ji
Having the escape channel to dump the boundary layer means another vertical sheet on the air intake. Does this translate to more reflection vis a vis the DSI bump.
Of note, the Mirage 2000 has both an escape channel and a DSI bump, which has been abandoned in favour of just the escape channel on the Rafale.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3493
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby JayS » 24 Oct 2016 18:06

^^ M2K does not have DSI bump, its the shock cone (or rather half-cone) just like MiG21 has one in its nose. F35 has DSI. And Chinese copied it in their jet later. Rafale dropped the shock cone because its not designed for the kind of high speed M2K was designed for since the philosophy of having M2 jet lost its attractiveness.

DSI and splitter plate are basically substitute for one another. DSI = Diverterless (spliter) Supersonic Intake. You keep one of them, and for obvious reasons that IR states it makes sense to keep the splitter plate.

So basically just change the existing circular intake shape to rectangular one.

However there is gap between the top part of intake and the wing. This should also be kept as such.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 24 Oct 2016 19:08

Like the AMCA...

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 24 Oct 2016 19:50

The other thing I have seen is that space below stealth planes is compromised for placing the internal weapons bay.
So the planes need to be increased in height, air intakes can be curved vertically and electronics shifted to the bulge behind the cockpit.
This way a large internal weapons bay is possible below and two smaller ones for smaller sized (air to ground) munitions on the two sides, placed between the air intake and the landing gear.
The landing gear itself needs to be moved outwards onto the wings

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10991
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Gagan » 24 Oct 2016 21:29

Very flawed and inaccurate, not-to-scale, and TIFWIW image
Image

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby NRao » 27 Oct 2016 01:38

I had proposed a AMCA version of a single engine plane. Went about trying to build one in sketchUp.


But then found this. Pretty close to what I had in mind.

Image

Pelikan tail for LO. But if maneuverability is desirable, then a traditional tail, with two vertical, could replace the Pelikan.

But, I would retain the diamond, or keep it fairly close. And lengthen it some, so there is no overlap of the wing and the Pelikan tail.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 02 Nov 2016 02:53

I finally got around to draw an LCA with stealth shape.

Image

1. No internal bays
2. MLG retracts straight up by the side of the intake. Frees up space for more internal fuel/LRUs (say internal EW), and underbelly area to place two additional fuselage hardpoints on two sides of the current central hardpoint.
3. F-16 style airbrakes
4. F-18 E/F styled intakes
6. Fuselage lengthened by 0.5 mtrs. Powered by F414s.
7. Canted V-tail.
8. Semi recessed Mig-29 UPG like IFR probe (if fully recessed IFR probe is not possible).

I have asked for some expert help to draw 3D models of the same.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Kakarat » 02 Nov 2016 11:32

Indranil wrote:I finally got around to draw an LCA with stealth shape.

Image

1. No internal bays
2. MLG retracts straight up by the side of the intake. Frees up space for more internal fuel/LRUs (say internal EW), and underbelly area to place two additional fuselage hardpoints on two sides of the current central hardpoint.
3. F-16 style airbrakes
4. F-18 E/F styled intakes
6. Fuselage lengthened by 0.5 mtrs. Powered by F414s.
7. Canted V-tail.
8. Semi recessed Mig-29 UPG like IFR probe (if fully recessed IFR probe is not possible).

I have asked for some expert help to draw 3D models of the same.


Super concept, this is like Hornet to Super Hornet upgrade & can be a good stepping stone for AMCA

I think you should write to people in ADA and PMO with details on this concept, ADA website has a contact list

kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby kmkraoind » 02 Nov 2016 12:08

HAL/DRDO should open their wind tunnels for enthusiasts/universities to test their designs. Thanks to 3D printing, conceptual models can be build in a jiffy, but testing/validating them requires wind tunnels, which cant be obtained by normal folks.

Anyhow HAL/DRDO will not use the wind tunnels all the time, so they can open their WTs for 2 days of week (normal circumstances) to enthusiasts/universities. Its a win-win for everybody. HAL/DRDO can accumulate tons of data, design libraries.

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rishi Verma » 02 Nov 2016 12:48

In this brainstorming exercise it would have been cool if some posters were artificial "customers" .. seems everyone has become "designers". The "customer" would set forth a set of requiments then "designers" can come up with solution tailored to that which can be delivered in 5-years or less. The 5-year time limit was mentioned in the first paragraph of first page. Just like HAL and NAL you guys forgot the deadline and went off on a science project :wink:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests