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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rammpal » 02 Nov 2016 13:10

^^^Allow me to kick it off then !

1. Minimum order 500 units.
2. MTOW = 10 tonnes.
3. twin engined, at least !
4. V-Landing.
5. Thrust vectoring - 3 shots.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 03 Nov 2016 01:27

kmkraoind wrote: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.

Major universities have cycles on all national wind tunnels. 3D printing only allows one to print a shape and you are right, that it allows a very cheap method to do so. However, a wind tunnel model is much more than just a shape. 3D printing technology does not help there.

Rishi Verma wrote: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:

Actually, none of these are a science project. Various Indian agencies and universities have been studying Y intakes with rectangular mouths for about a decade now. Although, I have not described what I have drawn, the intakes you see in the drawing are scaled versions of those studies. Indian scientist have the capability of designing rectangular shaped intakes thanks to the AMCA project as well. The MLG config is also from NLCA Navy Mk2. Such a solution is also adopted in the Gripen NG. The trailing edge of the wing -body fairing is also from NLCA Mk2. I have lengthened this to house F-16 style airbrakes. This is necessary because if we move to the V tail then the airbrakes have to be moved. Alternately, a Su-30/F-15 style dorsal airbrakes could also have been adopted. In either cases the airbrakes would not create an uncommanded pitch-up moment simplifying the flight control computer's workload (from the current system). As you can see, I have only scaled down the tail and not shaped it for stealth, so that the implementation remains simple.

Image

Rammpal wrote:^^^Allow me to kick it off then !

1. Minimum order 500 units.
2. MTOW = 10 tonnes.
3. twin engined, at least !
4. V-Landing.
5. Thrust vectoring - 3 shots.

Clearly, you know not what you speak. Your requirements are contradictory.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2682
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby chola » 03 Nov 2016 02:28

Specifications:
1. F414 equivalent engine (far better than the RD-33 based putterers on our MiG-29s.). Medium engine, not too large and not too weak.

2. Concurrent single/double engine designs

3. Affordable Single engine low (basically a LCA with a great engine)

4. More expensive/capable twin high (hopefully also for our cat-capable Vishal)

Administrative:
1. Mandate IAF give requirements and freeze them

2. Mandate numbers IAF/IN provide numbers needed of both high and low

3. Mandate delivery of those numbers by HAL by exact dates (with reasonable slippages open public scrutiny)

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rammpal » 03 Nov 2016 05:51

Indranil wrote:Clearly, you know not what you speak. Your requirements are contradictory.


Dear sir, could you kindly elaborate on the above, please.
I'm guessing it's twin engine vs MTOW of a 'mere' 10 tonne :) ?

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 04 Nov 2016 22:24

1. Why do you need VTOL? Every mechanism used for VTOL is contradictory to fighter performance. They are deadweight when the aircraft is supported by wing lift. They use up valuable space and place restrictions on the shape of the plane and the inlet which are detrimental to the agility and maneuverability of the aircraft. Therefore, light-weight VTOL is an oxymoron, and so is cheap VTOL.

2. You can certainly design a light fighter using two engines. But how will you create the vertical thrust using two engines?

3. Why do you want TVC? In some other thread you said it decreases the radius of turn. That is a fallacy. The advantage of TVC is a nose-pointing ability. But you will bet it only once in turning flight. We have discussed this at length before.

4. The empty weight of the lightest fighter that one can design with all the contemporary systems is LCA/T-50/JF-17/Gripen C/D. That is 6.5-7.0 Tons. So if you add fuel, what do you have left for payload in a 10T aircraft?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 07 Nov 2016 08:37

Indranil wrote:3. Why do you want TVC? In some other thread you said it decreases the radius of turn. That is a fallacy. The advantage of TVC is a nose-pointing ability. But you will bet it only once in turning flight. We have discussed this at length before.

Ah. Read again. This is not vanilla 'common-or-garden" thrust vectoring that every man and his uncle are deeply familiar with. It's 3-shots thrust vectoring.

Indranil wrote:2. You can certainly design a light fighter using two engines. But how will you create the vertical thrust using two engines?

One will point back. One will point down - it's that simple - if you really know about aircraft design :D

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rishi Verma » 07 Nov 2016 09:20

I hope CholaJi and RammpalJi understand that even a requirement spec for a pencil would be more detailed than what you have posted.

First, a requirement spec need to be differentiated from a wish-list.

Second, a requirement spec items need to be justified (each requirement need a paragraph or reference as to why)

Third, a requirement spec is highly detailed running into few hundred pages
(let's allow you to have an excel sheet with 300 entries)

"design your fighter" even if it results in a semi-serious requirements spec for a hypothetical fighter plane, I would be impressed. Actual design can be left to actual designers.

I am willing to type up an excel sheet (but don't know how to post Google Doc on the thread) based on serious inputs from posters.

(added later: nothing wrong in having a concept design, sketch, illustrated ideas, etc but then the thread title is wrong)
Last edited by Rishi Verma on 07 Nov 2016 09:32, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 07 Nov 2016 09:22

Aircraft design can't be that difficult. I once designed an aircraft from a book. It flies like a book.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rishi Verma » 07 Nov 2016 09:37

shiv wrote:Aircraft design can't be that difficult. I once designed an aircraft from a book. It flies like a book.


Actually this statement is more profound than just a joke. Most modern designs can't be taught from text books. It is a blend of art/engineering/insight/yogic concentration that results from years of very hard work and many failures.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 23 Feb 2017 20:20

Would it be possible to make an engine test bed out of an HS 748 by mounting the engine in one of the positions shown in red
Image

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby NRao » 23 Feb 2017 20:48

The original Fairchild, twin props, packet.


Image


IAF jugaad, with a jet on the hood and props turned off.


Image

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1930
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Bala Vignesh » 27 Feb 2017 20:56

Wasn't the jet pack added to enhance the operability of the packets in the High altitude forward ALG's?? It was not instrumented and modified for test bed roles, which requires quite a bit of modifications to the structure and plumbing.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 27 Feb 2017 21:22

Bala Vignesh wrote:Wasn't the jet pack added to enhance the operability of the packets in the High altitude forward ALG's?? It was not instrumented and modified for test bed roles, which requires quite a bit of modifications to the structure and plumbing.

Structure and plumbing mods have to be done anyway or the engine won't have any fuel or controls. In that image the props are feathered and the Packet is flying on jet phower alone

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 04 Mar 2017 04:21

I have been thinking about how to design a CAS/COIN plane for the higher mountains. It is our special need, just like the LCH. And so nobody makes a plane like that. I have expressed this before why I believe that the combat Hawk cannot get the job done. If the Jaguars with much better TWR cannot even get there, then there is no way that the Hawk can. Basically, we need a specialist.

Desirable characteristics.
1. It should be able to fly high and slow. Its job is not aerial battles. They operateon our side of the fence. And if attacked, it dives into the valleys for protection where fighters can't follow or missiles will break contact.
2. It is should be easy to maintain as it might be operating from advanced airfields.
3. It should have good hang time, so that when operating from airports in the hinterland, it can fly to the operation theater and stay there for long enough.
4. It is should be cheaper to build and maintain than advanced fighters.
5. It should be rugged enough and have redundant systems to take some hits and still keep flying.

Basic outlines
1. Empty weight ~5 Tons, MTOW ~9.5 Tons.
2. Armament: gun (integral or pod), LDP and LGBs. Total armament load: 2 Tons
3. Thrust: 2 X ~25 kN high bypass turbofans housed in rear mounted engine pods. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Just get the pod+engine combo from any established business jet. The high bypass engines provide good performance and fuel efficiency at those altitudes. Coupled with an unconstricted airflow, this will allow very good take off and landing performance as well as low-speed maneuvering at high altitudes. These engines being used on civilian planes require much less maintenance and the podded arrangement allows very easy access. Additionally, their position limits FOD damage while operating from advanced fields as well as damage to the rest of the fuselage and the engine.
4. Lighted loaded wing with moderate sweep.
5. The cockpit and critical parts of the aircraft need armour protection.
6. It should be a two seater, so that the pilot can concentrate on negotiating the terrain, while the co-pilot can scan the slopes and ridges and man the weapons.

In theory, the plane that I am describing would look very similar to the Boeing's Skyfox trainer. Bu the way, that plane is a kit modification of the T-33. This is very similar to what we were discussing. Can be design a plane from existing pieces to shorten the development and testing time.
Image

6. I am looking for ways in which the pilot has protection from shots fired at him after he has ejected. Are there known methods of jettisoning the cockpit itself at ejection. This allows the pilot additional shelter from the elements till help arrives.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1527
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Manish_P » 04 Mar 2017 11:35

6. I am looking for ways in which the pilot has protection from shots fired at him after he has ejected. Are there known methods of jettisoning the cockpit itself at ejection. This allows the pilot additional shelter from the elements till help arrives.


Possible. Has been done/tried before. But on much larger aircrafts

1. Cockpit ejection on the F111 Aardvark




2. Pod ejection on the B58 Hustler


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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 04 Mar 2017 11:51

Ah! Thank you! The Aardvark ejection is very similar to what I was thinking off.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 04 Mar 2017 17:03

Indranil - a couple of points
1. I think the Jaguar's problem was high wing loading leading to inability to turn (& climb) to avoid mountaintops and mountainsides) because a lot of high altitude COIN will be in valleys. So low wing loading is probably as much a plus point as abundant power

2. Regarding the engine - high bypass engines have a bigger inertia and spool up time which is a disadvantage for power surges in turning and manoeuvring in valleys and pulling the nose up without flying into a mountainside. A low bypass fan or turbojet may be more useful.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 07 Mar 2017 02:34

Hakeem,

Thanks for your interest in my "design".

1. I agree that the low wing loading is a must. However, one has to be careful. There is a lot of turbulence while flying close to valleys, especially the ridges. Crew fatigue must also be considered. A lightly loaded wing is sensitive to gust response. Therefore, we should adopt a low aspect ratio swept wing. Also using a composite wing with higher flexibility may provide for a more comfortable ride. I want to reuse existing designs. I want to target a wing loading of around 300 kg/m^2 for a loaded weight of roughly 7.5 to 8 tons. HF-24s wings seem ideal. What's more its known to be super sturdy and was designed to carry exactly the 1.8 Tons of payload on pylons that I was targeting. So I will start with that as the starting point. I would ask NAL to generate a composite cousin using their Verity process.

2. I don't agree with the turbojet philosophy. Modern low bypass turbofans are as responsive as the old turbojets. The latter makes the plane heavy and fuel hungry. I will find out the difference in responsiveness between a 25kN high bypass and low-bypass turbofans. However, I doubt the inertia of the fans in this thrust class, will differ by that much. If we go for the former, we will have higher endurance, and the capability to use well tested and refined engine+nacelle combinations. Additionally, we can have thrust reversals for shorter landing runs. If we use the latter, we can after burners.

3. Actually, if you ask me. I would reuse HF-24s front and middle fuselage. I will replace the cockpit, with the Jaguars Darin III cockpit. People knowledgeable about targeting and tracking systems can let us know if we need to have a ground tracking radar in the nose. In such a case, we can reuse the proposed ELM 2052s that we are getting for the Jaguar upgrades. I will lose 2 of the guns and retain only the 2 guns which were certified to work safely. I will replace the NLG with Tejas's NLG and eradicate the intakes for the engines. The fuel system from the old Marut may be retained or augmented with pressure refueling capability. The rear fuselage has to be redone with the poded engines and provision for more fuel. However, there is a chance of reusing Marut's fin and vertical stabilizers.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 08 Mar 2017 22:23

Amphibious Dornier 228

Taking a cue from Seastar, the amphibious Dornier in its civilian version should be able to operate in Sea state 3, if the market study around Seastar is any good, this version of Dornier can try enter that market. Far east is littered with islands and this can be a good outreach. Also, original German origin of Dornier makes it easier to get a Euro certification?

The mil version should better that by trying to operate in a higher sea state, maybe they can uprate the two engines to do these,
1) Fly thru bad weather, the Nishant UAV had crashes because its powerplant couldn't handle strong wind gusts
2) Takeoff from choppy waters
3) Cater for the sensor load

A twin engined LUH perhaps can do ASW not AEW and the Dornier is probably the highest one can go in terms of size on a ship, as it comes close to a Seaking in dimensions.

After the unmanned Chetak experiment, the LUH might go the unmanned route, so can the amphibious Dornier to improve the endurance and make ship recovery easier. Maybe it can refuel while landed on water with a ship tethered UUV providing a drogue attachment.

Image

Of the many options for sensors, one is the side radar on the Dornier with whatever limited AEW function it can perform and onboard consoles substituted with datalinks

The day NLCA Mk1 does its Carrier landing and takeoff, we can talk about the unmanned Dornier doing the same. Drones sell better.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 08 Mar 2017 23:01

The navy had asked the HTT-40 team if they could make a version of HTT-40 carrier capable. The HTT-40 team analyzed the problem and said after the landing gear and plane is made carrier capable, it won't have enough thrust to weight ratio left to operate from the ship deck. Now that plane has about 50% more thrust to weight ratio of the dornier.

Also when people say there is an additional engine for the added electronics onboard an AEW plane, they are speaking of an APU.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 08 Mar 2017 23:12

Indranil, you are still thinking in terms of Carrier landing, when I am not even making an effort to do so, that was somebody's landmine. The focus is still amphibious operations.

Now that you mention HTT-40, I remember the WW2 era planes taking off from Carriers like in movie "Tora Tora Tora"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 09 Mar 2017 08:04

Indranil wrote:3. Actually, if you ask me. I would reuse HF-24s front and middle fuselage. I will replace the cockpit, with the Jaguars Darin III cockpit. People knowledgeable about targeting and tracking systems can let us know if we need to have a ground tracking radar in the nose. In such a case, we can reuse the proposed ELM 2052s that we are getting for the Jaguar upgrades. I will lose 2 of the guns and retain only the 2 guns which were certified to work safely. I will replace the NLG with Tejas's NLG and eradicate the intakes for the engines. The fuel system from the old Marut may be retained or augmented with pressure refueling capability. The rear fuselage has to be redone with the poded engines and provision for more fuel. However, there is a chance of reusing Marut's fin and vertical stabilizers.

Whether you are right or not the idea of using existing skills to move forward with small increments is something that we must learn. Sadly we completely frittered away the skill built up with the HF 24

I made an off topic comment in the mijjiles thread which I will re paraphrase here.

With missile technology the "user" (army/airforce/navy) got (and had to accept) what was technically feasible in the country - starting with 250 km liquid fuelled Prithvi. That gave the user something to use without threat of sanctions while the designer developed his skills to world class.

On the other hand - with imports available to us the "user" for fighter aircraft - the air force has been very very picky about specs in Indian designed aircraft. If only we had been properly sanctioned like China or like we were with missiles?

Ironically our "cutting edge" attack aircraft and helicopters failed us in Kargil leaving the space open for an imported air superiority fighter jugaadified to do "break the door down". We can do it - but the we must have faith and trust our own.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 09 Mar 2017 12:30

Hakeem, you know I am in complete agreement with that.

Vasu, I will leave it to you to find out the thrust to weight ratio of those WW II aircraft. In those days, the engines of those aircraft used to weigh about half the empty weight of the aircraft. They did have a TWR of the modern day HTT-40, because they hardly used to have any other heavy component.

Returning to the Dornier, what HAL achieved with the 228 for the Navy is at the boundary of its capability. In fact, dornier now markets it as upgraded features. Asking such a small platform to also pay the price of being an amphibian and a mini AEW is too much.

One could argue that with the new engines and propellers, they have more power lifting capability. This can be translated into an APU housed in the tail, and added antennas added to the chin. The aircraft already has six hard points there each rated at 50 kgs.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 10 Mar 2017 21:35

Indranil, Looking at the powerplants from wiki, seems like the current engine of HTT-40 (820kW) is a higher power variant of the ones used in Do-228 (2 * 578kW), maybe the Dornier could be uprated.

Let's use the Ka-31 for reference which uses 2 * 1633kW, almost three times that of the Dornier 228 to do its AEW function with limited endurance. we don't know how much is actually teed off to the radar

Its the Dornier 328 model using 2 * 1625kW that comes close to the Ka-31 in terms of power and it is much bigger than the 228

Image

as a potential modification, if the Do-328 goes the unmanned route with no need for passenger seating, it doesn't need a bigger airframe and can be shrunk and in the process can shed some weight, wiki gives an empty weight of 9100kg to it.

Conversely, HAL owned Do-228 can use those engines and maybe the beefy wing as well and in doing so even if the already "shrunk airframe" need to be structurally strengthened, it has margin to grow from its base empty weight of 3800kg upto 9000kg.

Image

once that is made feasible, we can see if there is any weight margin left for a radar that gives a higher performance than the baseline Ka-31 AEW, the volume constraint is not restricting as much.

to fund these efforts without asking the Navy first, one can sell the civilian amphibian version at the earnest.
Last edited by vasu raya on 10 Mar 2017 22:37, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 10 Mar 2017 21:56

There is a Navy Do 228 Maritime survelliance a/c
Image

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 10 Mar 2017 22:23

shiv, the whole discussion was about Navy Do 228 as the target platform since HAL was going to pitch an amphib version of the same, at the same time they aren't sure if Navy would accept it, and I believe there is export potential for an amphib version on the civilian side after taking a look at the Seastar and in that game only HAL + MoD are the decision makers,

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 12 Mar 2017 14:03

I won't go into the financial basis of HAL's decision to pursue an amphibious Do-228 design. My guess is as good as yours. So let them be. I am only trying to understand what do you want from that plane. Please provide a succinct definition of it intended role like:

1. An amphibian utility plane for civil and/or naval use.
2. An amphibian plane for recce
3. An amphibian mini-AEW
4. An amphibian plane which can be tailored to all of the above, or some combination of the above. If latter, which combination.
5. None of the above. If true, what is the role?

If you can pin down what you are trying to achieve, we can look at the options.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Rishi Verma » 12 Mar 2017 16:59

Amphibian is ideal for casvac duties from subs and ships

Amphibian can also SAR downed pilots

Also for inserting / extracting SF

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 13 Mar 2017 23:01

Indranil,

First iteration,
1. and 2. which is probably what IN wants and all the reasons that Rishi mentions

Later iteration with uprated engines,
2. and 3. with Ka-31 as the baseline both in endurance and radar performance. Prefer this to be unmanned and they have the Rustom-2 program to rely on.

A clean slate is always optimal, here we want to get something quick to operations by reducing your risk for development delays and get feedback from the forces to maybe feed into the clean slate approach.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 14 Mar 2017 06:56

Okay.

1 and 2, I think every body agrees. Even HAL.

For 3, how do you propose that an amphibian AEW follows a ship on its typical 3 month deployment, especially, if it a blue water deployment?
For a UAV, currently, the world over, the stat-of-art is to land a UAV on a the rolling deck of a ship. Apart from Khan, nobody has landed a fixed wing aircraft on a ship. I am obviously not counting micro UAVs caught by nets. How do you propose HAL develops an UAV to land on rolling seas?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 14 Mar 2017 07:46

Indranil wrote:
1. An amphibian utility plane for civil and/or naval use.
2. An amphibian plane for recce
3. An amphibian mini-AEW
4. An amphibian plane which can be tailored to all of the above, or some combination of the above. If latter, which combination.
If you can pin down what you are trying to achieve, we can look at the options.

IMO number 1 includes 2, 3 and 4. If you create 1, then the others are a natural follow on.

But landing on inland waterways and water bodies has not been mentioned, including landing on Pangong lake near Aksai chin.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 14 Mar 2017 09:17

Hakeem, If I have a land based AEW, why would I pay the price of always lugging around those floats. There are huge drag implications. Not only is there great form drag, but there is an increase in induced drag (remember what your fried told you: weight is drag, drag is weight). For example, there are examples were addition of external fuel tanks have actually decreased the range of an aircraft.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby shiv » 14 Mar 2017 22:15

I do agree that Making an AEW out of a Do 228 amphibian is a bad idea. There is always the option of NOT making an AEW but using the amphibian for various other purposes. SAR, inter-Island commuter transport, recce, dam security and maintenance, tourism etc.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 461
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Atmavik » 14 Mar 2017 22:22

shiv wrote:I do agree that Making an AEW out of a Do 228 amphibian is a bad idea. There is always the option of NOT making an AEW but using the amphibian for various other purposes. SAR, inter-Island commuter transport, recce, dam security and maintenance, tourism etc.



Nitin Gadkari has been pushing the idea of a sea plane for goa and kerala tourism.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 14 Mar 2017 23:09

IN wanted the US-2 for SAR which has amphibious capability in waters with 4 meter waves or Sea state 5, on cost considerations we are switching to the Dornier 228, can this aircraft operate in the same Sea state? the requirement is there but how far HAL can go with its design changes is not known, Philip did give a hint, and will that be a make or break for Navy, not sure either. But then Japan reached US-2 after it operated a smaller US-1.

As far as automation of amphibious landing is concerned, lets take the NLCA example, once its good for Carrier takeoff and landing they plan to bring in automation to ease the pilot's stress levels. Sure, Uncle is like a compass for research, however their requirements are different.

if the aircraft is designed for amphibious operation then automating the landing and takeoff is in the offing. And it is more flexible than a carrier based landing. The arguable point is up to what Sea state or wave height? there again an unmanned aircraft can be risked with.

Lets start with INS Jalashwa as the carrier for these amphibious aircraft and Do 228 can match dimensions of a Seaking for stowage purposes.

Once again let me state, the idea for an amphibian AEW within India's means has to be viewed relative to the Ka-31 and not based on the optimal qualities of the mod itself. I wouldn't judge Ka-31 as a bad idea just because it has limited endurance and when a fixed wing can offer better endurance, why not?

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 15 Mar 2017 01:38

Body mounted side radar
Image

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 15 Mar 2017 02:24

If I am getting it correctly, you are speaking of carrying an amphibian aircraft on an LPD/LHD in lieu of an AEW aircraft.

If this is indeed your suggestion, then it is not new. But it is a tried and discarded concept. It was used in WW-II by many ships. The planes would be catapult launched, or just lowered into the sea, and retrieved by a crane. But this entire process is cumbersome and very time consuming. During this time, the ship is literally a "sitting" duck. Also launching and retrieving by cranes can only be done in relatively calm seas. The plane at the end of the hoisting ropes is a pendulum, right next to the ships hull.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Indranil » 15 Mar 2017 02:25

vasu raya wrote:Body mounted side radar
Image

What is the power requirement of such a radar?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby Cybaru » 15 Mar 2017 04:26

My response to the above question would be -Depends on the resolution you want to see and distance you want to peek.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Postby vasu raya » 15 Mar 2017 05:27

Few variables that differ from the WW2 setting are, endurance, unmanned option, data links and better launch/recovery procedure. As long as this is an experimental setup using a crane for launch and recovery is fine.

The gulfstream was to give an indication of the radar placement, regarding the power req., look at this post,

https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=2126582#p2126582

if an additional APU is needed on the Do-228 then its intake can be placed in the location below where the pylons connecting the wing are placed in the Seastar in the process placing the wing even higher. we are NOT taking its engine placement.

Image

These mods would be a departure from the base Dornier 228 airframe.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, suryag and 30 guests