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.
Post Reply
bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by bmallick »

Jeff.... Should we go for a internal bomb bay? If so, I have been checking most of the strike missiles and 2000lbs bombs should be able to fit inside a 5 m x 1 m bay. In fact 1 m width would mean most of the time 2 can be carried inside.

Also, what should be the loiter requirement and range requirement. Would a 2 hour loiter at 200km distance be good. Also a lo-lo-lo range of around 1500 km internal fuel.

Also, most of the CAS * Strike missions would probably be done going lo - lo - lo. Again I am speculating it here. Also we should probably stick away from providing any air-to-air role except for IR missiles and leave the air protection to more specialized crafts, this would mean lower cost.
manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by manish.rastogi »

okay....a little thought....i guess we should nt go for internal bay....i know it would help in stealth but its too much of a compromise.....weight penalty less ordinance etc.....in my opinion we should go for speed and maneuverability to compensate that!!
Jeff Wickline
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 02 Nov 2010 21:06
Location: North East

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Jeff Wickline »

bmallick wrote:Jeff.... Should we go for a internal bomb bay? If so, I have been checking most of the strike missiles and 2000lbs bombs should be able to fit inside a 5 m x 1 m bay. In fact 1 m width would mean most of the time 2 can be carried inside.

Also, what should be the loiter requirement and range requirement. Would a 2 hour loiter at 200km distance be good. Also a lo-lo-lo range of around 1500 km internal fuel.

Also, most of the CAS * Strike missions would probably be done going lo - lo - lo. Again I am speculating it here. Also we should probably stick away from providing any air-to-air role except for IR missiles and leave the air protection to more specialized crafts, this would mean lower cost.
From the previous posts in this thread, the roles for the proposed combat aircraft should include:
A/G Role against armour formations (and convoys, trains?)
A/G role against fixed high value tragets (though S2S missiles may be more suitable)
A/G Anti radiation
A/A in self defence (and targets of opportunity, like UAV/UCAV? Don't laugh, happened in Iraq).
Awaiting further inputs to define the envisaged roles.
Honestly my knowledge about CAS tactics is next to zero. I would still venture to make the following comments:
- I would think 1000kg bomb would be too heavy. Future CAS aircraft may have to depend more on light weight guided weapons.
- Would ponder over the range and loiter requirements and/or wait for more inputs from knowledgeable members (not excluding you).
- If stationed in interior and safer locations, the a/c may travel hi till it reaches within, say 100 km of the hot spot and then only it may go lo-lo (hope I understood it correctly). On return it may again go with altitude.

@ Manish:
Ok, we would not foreclose the internal/external stores option for the time being. If the a/c has to go lo-lo over large distance, an internal weapon bay would reduce drag and increase range substantially, IMHO. but we have to crank some numbers soon.
Cheers.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Gentlemen,
Remember this aircraft is a mud mover. It is going to be used right up in the frontlines where the IA will be fighting with its armor and infantry. So stealth is not a key factor. The enemy has already been engaged in combat.
Would take up indranil sir's idea to make it a bit agile for use as an SEAD aircraft.
And also lets design this bird for a good lo lo performance since most of its work will be in those altitudes.
manish.rastogi
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Nov 2010 15:30
Location: Pandora.....
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by manish.rastogi »

how about a flying wing??
bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by bmallick »

Bala Vignesh wrote:Gentlemen,
Remember this aircraft is a mud mover. It is going to be used right up in the frontlines where the IA will be fighting with its armor and infantry. So stealth is not a key factor. The enemy has already been engaged in combat.
Would take up indranil sir's idea to make it a bit agile for use as an SEAD aircraft.
And also lets design this bird for a good lo lo performance since most of its work will be in those altitudes.
Stealth was not the reason why I suggested having a internal bay. Since this craft would be over the battlefield and low most of the time, Iball Mk1 it self would defeat stealth, so stealth is something that we should not aim for probably. My suggestion for internal weapons bay were two fold, firstly for interdiction and attacks inside enemy territory having bombs inside would mean less drag and longer range. Secondly while providing CAS to troops on the ground, if longer loitering period is required, why not just put a fuel tank inside the weapons bay. This would mean that drop tanks, which are some of the fattiest items on the wings are hidden inside, hence less drag and longer loiter.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Pratyush »

Rahul M wrote:pratyush ji, I kept strictly within the confines of the LCA Mk1 capabilities, so as to make this as realistic as possible. with additional armour its payload will decrease to those levels.
a normal LCA squadron can operate one flight of this variant without creating problems in maintenance.

for MOABs ( :P ) we will use MKI's and the like. this one is meant strictly for close air support or CAS. strafing and bombing enemy troops and vehicles in front of IA units as they move.
for other roles it can carry rockets and 250 kg PGMs.
Rahul,

If I try to seriously critiq your design. Mind you it will be from my musharraf onlee :(( . The performance of the design is seriously underwhelming. The Hawk can do more or less everything your design can. However if you agree for me to take your idea and concept and radically redisign the aircraft. Then this what I can come up with.

The capabilities to do this already exist with the HAL and domestic industry. If approved by the IAF, it can be finished by the HAL in next 5 years. With a budget of less then 500Mil us $. The cost per AC will not exceed 10 mil US $ and we will have our own close support and battlefield intradiction aircraft.

The Ideas are as follows. It is to reuse as much of the existing capabilities as possible.

1) Use the Kaveri as is. It has less thrust then the 404 no problems. Eliminate the Reheat as well. It should now generate as much thrust as the Arado (??) of the IAF Jaguar.
2) Use the EW fit of the Tejas
3) Design the airframe in a way tha it can lift 4 to 5 tons of lift and is optimised for subsonic filight only. Bacically an Indian SU 25. First prototype can take to the air in 3 to 5 years if the start is made now. Considering the sitara experience.
4) Use darin 3 of the Jaguar.


You can argue that the Mig 27 can also do the same job. I will agree that it can. But it will not last forever. You can say that the AMCA will replace it. I will both agree and disagree with you. The AMCA will be an over kill for CAS / COIN type job. So for the dumb and dirty missions we will need to have this paltform.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

bmallick wrote:My suggestion for internal weapons bay were two fold, firstly for interdiction and attacks inside enemy territory having bombs inside would mean less drag and longer range. Secondly while providing CAS to troops on the ground, if longer loitering period is required, why not just put a fuel tank inside the weapons bay. This would mean that drop tanks, which are some of the fattiest items on the wings are hidden inside, hence less drag and longer loiter.
If weapons are inside then internal fuel space is necessarily eaten up. And range increase due to decreased external drag is spoiled by the decrease in internal fuel. What you are suggesting is that an internal space be reserved fro the dual purpose of weapons or fuel. Feasible but it would require twin engine or an extra "fat" body for single engine. That has its own drag penalty.


Internal weapons bays nowadays are mainly for stealth and supercruise. If neither is required why bother?
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Shiv,

I am yet to see numbers from this thread that can be used for preliminary sizing efforts of any kind. Can you lead the effort to do so? For example: if the group here can put down an A2A version, A2G version or CAS version wishlist, I could perhaps begin some conceptual outlines based on aero-load predictions etc that will clear up the whole notion of what can be squeezed in or not.

Numbers such as engine choice (hence engine sizing, thrust performance etc), number of engines, pylons, stealthly intakes, nose volume, fuel requirements etc.

Minus all this, the thread would simply turn into a qualitative wishlist, would it not?

-Vivek
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vivek_ahuja »

As an example, I remember reading it on this thread somewhere the notion of perhaps a twin engine Tejas etc. Here's an outlook:

Image

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

vivek_ahuja wrote:Shiv,

I am yet to see numbers from this thread that can be used for preliminary sizing efforts of any kind. Can you lead the effort to do so? For example: if the group here can put down an A2A version, A2G version or CAS version wishlist, I could perhaps begin some conceptual outlines based on aero-load predictions etc that will clear up the whole notion of what can be squeezed in or not.

Numbers such as engine choice (hence engine sizing, thrust performance etc), number of engines, pylons, stealthly intakes, nose volume, fuel requirements etc.

Minus all this, the thread would simply turn into a qualitative wishlist, would it not?

-Vivek
Vivek those are beautiful images.

I may not have the expertise to go beyond a wishlist - but what I was thinking of was basically a twin engine Adour 804 or 811 (the only condition is that they must be fully made in SDREland) powered aircraft that meets the demands made by Abhibhushan on page 1 of this thread crossposted below.My mental image is of an aircraft that is somewhere between the Hawk and the A-10.
Abhibhushan wrote: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.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Shiv,

You are accurate in your assumptions of the Hawk-A10 cross config. If an Adour 811 type engine is in fact used, you will end up with a Jaguar minus the high speed, long range stuff. About the same size, but redesigned wings for low speed work. Higher payload because you sacrifice range requirements. I just posted the Jaguar performance chart at Laddakh operational heights on the scenarios thread. There, however, I was attempting to highlight the long range characteristics of the design: underwing drop tanks, terrain hugging navigation, upper wing missile pylons for effective missile release when at low altitudes (not to mention opening up space underneath) and so on.

So many of those config details are designed for high speed work. That will all go. In fact, the aircraft you start seeing is closer to the SU-25 (MINUS the sizing! I am talking from a scaled standpoint of the Adour in terms of design) a lot!

Surprisingly, so many of your design requirements is in fact met by the SU-25 that its curious. The requirement to primarily carry the rockets (albeit exterior under wings), Gsh cannon and so forth, yet retaining a fuselage mounted twin engine configuration and a low speed wing etc are all met by a SU-25 type design.

BTW, the overall requirements put forward in your quoted post are very light. A lot more can be carried even with the Adours for a radius of 200km+

I will post my conceptual efforts in a few hours time as soon as my PDO software is done processing my requirements...

-Vivek
Jeff Wickline
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 02 Nov 2010 21:06
Location: North East

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Jeff Wickline »

^^^^ Now that the real designers have taken interest, the newbies and not-so-experienced members should take back seats and watch and learn.
One more point, the "newbies and not-so-experienced" members may, however, congratulate themselves for keeping the thread alive.
Cheers and shalom.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Pratyush »

Vivek hears my wish list for the CAS design.

2 kaveri non after burn engines
8 tons of payload.
4 hrs non refuled endurance at 250 km radius.
high subsonic speeds.

If you can simulate on the basis of this I will be greatful.

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

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by manish.rastogi »

shiv wrote:
manish.rastogi wrote: You might have seen movies like Stealth and the recent GI Joe Rise of the Cobra......I took some inspiration from that!Now I hardly have any technical knowledge but I say that we should develop from scratch a totally new fighter plane(could also be said as 6th gen),the engine too...If we see new general innovations and technologies and basic concepts,I am pretty sure we could develop a unique and innovative jet and engine,I would say to develop a new kind of fuel with co-op from ISRO!
I say it should have internal bays for weapons....and some holes on the underneath of the fuselage to attach pylons if needed!
The biggest innovation I propose...is thrust vectoring but in a diff. manner,we should keep it on engine too!!but underneath the fuselage we should have some points from where thrust could be provided.....each point could give a variable thrust in the whole circular cone of area beneath it!All this could be controlled by a computer doing the necessary calculation stuff which could be controlled by pilot's throttle or by any other method which pilots would suggest!This could definitely give us a pretty good VTOL capability....and for sure would provide super maneuverability !I prefer maneuverability rather than very high speeds....for pulling maneuvers more than 9G....we could study the cockpit changes for more than 9G..and provide necessary changes which could nullify the high G effects!

I also say a bit enlarged and with some structural changes,we could also give a world class bomber JET!!
Please feel free to suggest or finding my mistakes!!I have still a lot to learn!
OK let me state my views on this.

Where do you want to put the engines? In the fuselage or on the wings. If it is one engine it will have to be fuselage/geographic middle of plane. If 2 engines they can go on the wings or sides of fuselage. If they are too far away from the center (wings) the loss of one engine due to any reason will result in asymmetric thrust so the engines are better off near the middle.

You have asked for a lot of things in the fuselage. You want an internal weapons bay. Unless the plane is a "flying wing" only the fuselage will have the space for an internal weapons bay. Then you want exhaust openings under the fuselage. You also want space for external pylons on the fuselage. Either you will need a fuselage as big as a ship, or they cannot all be accommodated. The bigger and thicker it is, the more "drag" (air resistance) it will have and the bigger the engines will need to be and the more fuel they will need. So it's range will be short, or some weight or drag has to be shaved off somewhere.

You speak of a new fuel. There are only two choices. Rocket fuel or jet fuel. We may be able to develop some bio jet fuel. Rocket fuel will make it a rocket/missile. Not a plane.

When you talk of aircraft that can do high G maneuvers you must recall that the human being (pilot) is the weakest link. Humans cannot survive sustained high G. There is no point in having an aircraft that can sustain 15 G because the pilot will not be able to take it. Better to make a missile or UCAV.
manish.rastogi wrote:shiv sir i would like 2 engines on that....i see that plane in heavy category....and sir maybe you are right about a lot of things beneath the fuselage but i still think all this could be adjusted there...sir i dont understand how we cant use the rocket fuel..(woule be grt if you describe it in brief)also i totally agree that the engines have to be really powerful as they have to provide thrust to the openings too....and what i say is we could create a controlled atmosphere in the cockpit....also i would like it to be flying wing but somewhat less in the width than b-2 type bombers and which looks more like jet!the main problems of the design i.e. Control and stability could be pretty much be solved by the proposed exhausts!
Please feel free to point other mistakes in the design or any other feature you would like me to learn about...i am really enthusiastic about aviation bt with not much technical knowledge...(i am just 16)! :P
So....these are my few posts......sorry if i spammed!!! :oops:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

On the general topic of fighter aircraft and designs I thought I would educate myself on the origins of successul fighter designs today - starting with the F-16. We could have an entire thread on this subject if there is sufficient interest - but for now I will merely post excerpts here.

The F-16 was born as the concept of a light daytime fighter designed to defeat the MiG threats of the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Obviously briliant minds were present in numbers in the US and the earliest thoughts of an F-16 fighter came up in the 1962-1965 period. By 1965 the US already had plans for the development of an "ADF" - advanced day fighter and it appears that many companies were already working on this in secret.

But it was not until 1971 that the US asked for such a Request For Proposals for this "ADF". Amazingly five US companies came up with designs by 1972 namely Boeing, Northrop, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought, and Lockheed. :!: :!: :shock: :shock:

The F-16 was in USAF service by 1979. People had been thinking about the concept from the 1962-65 time period - so when the time came to put their money where their mouth was - the F-16 was a done deal in 6-7 years. This was where the US was in the 1970s! Only finicky people who want details need to read further. The rest can ignore what is below.

********************************************************************************
One night in 1962 at the Eglin Air Force Base officers club, Mr. Hillaker was introduced to Maj. John Boyd, an abrasive and cocky but highly intelligent fighter pilot. Informed that Mr. Hillaker had worked on the F-111, then under development, Boyd launched into an expletive-laden tirade about what a poorly designed, underperforming aircraft it was fated to be.

According to numerous reports of that meeting, Mr. Hillaker quickly realized that Boyd knew far more about airplane design and performance than most pilots and invited him to sit. Soon, the two men were exchanging ideas and formulas on cocktail napkins.

In the years that followed, Boyd, assigned to the Pentagon, argued the cause for a lightweight, highly maneuverable and affordable fighter plane, the polar opposite of the F-111. He gained a few adherents, notably fellow fighter pilot Col. Everest Riccioni and a civilian Pentagon official named Pierre Sprey.

The Fighter Mafia, as the three became known, concocted a scheme to covertly begin work on just such a plane. Covert, because top Air Force brass were largely opposed to the concept and were spending billions to develop the new F-15 jet.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article4.html
As early as 1965, the USAF had begun concept formulation studies of new high-performance fighters. These included the F-X, a heavy interceptor/air-superiority fighter, and the lightweight Advanced Day Fighter (ADF). The F-X was to be in the 40,000-pound class and was to be equipped with advanced, sophisticated radar's and armed with long-range, radar-guided air-to-air missiles. The ADF was to be in the 25,000-pound class and was to have a thrust-to-weight ratio and a wing loading intended to better the performance of the MiG-21 by at least 25 percent. The general concept behind the ADF was much the same as the reasoning which had led after the Korean War to the Lockheed F-104A Starfighter.
<snip>
The ADF concept was kept alive by former fighter instructor Major John Boyd and Pierre Sprey, a civilian working in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis. They both disliked the F-X concept as it then existed, and preferred a much simpler design. In the late 1960s, they came up with a 25,000 pound design designated F-XX, which was to be a dedicated air superiority fighter with a high endurance, minimal electronics, and no long-range missiles. Later studies brought this weight down to 17,000 pounds.
and:
General Dynamics engineers had been concentrating on studies of a LWF for daytime dogfighting, with only minimal air-to-air electronics being provided. These studies had all been performed under the company designation of Model 401.
F-16 concept
Image

This is how Amrika did it: (same url as above)
A Request For Proposals (RfP) was issued to the industry on January 16, 1971
...
Five manufacturers submitted proposals in response to the RFP --- Boeing, Northrop, General Dynamics, Ling-Temco-Vought, and Lockheed. In March of 1972, the Air Staff concluded that the competing Boeing Model 908-909 was the first choice, with the General Dynamics Model 401 and the Northrop Model P-600 being rated as close seconds.
http://www.libertyreferences.com/f-16-history.shtml
The first YF-16 was brought out on December 13, 1973 to make its first test flight at Fort Worth and was air freighted by C-5A to Edwards AFB on January 8, 1974.
...
The first developed F-16A made its first flight on August 7, 1978, and the new F-16s were delivered to the Air Force ten days later.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

If there is any American program that can be compared to India's LCA program in terms of being ambitious and not having exact end goals in mind and leaving a moving target, it is the F-22. But before I write about the similarities let me mention the fundamental differences. Indian aviation technology is about 30 years behind the US in my estimate. India's goal IMO should be to reach a point that is 15 years behind the US in less than 15 years.

The F-22 started off as an "Advanced Tactical Fighter" (ATF) concept program in 1981. It reached IOC in 2005 - after 24 years.

Useless details below:

*****************************************************************

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... istory.htm
The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program had its origins in numerous US Air Force air combat studies carried out in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when intelligence revealed the Soviets' early flight testing of the Fulcrum and Flanker. From the observed geometry of the airframes it was clear that both types would have the vortex lift performance to challenge existing US aircraft such as the F-15 in turning dogfights. Hoever, both Soviet fighters would be handicapped by their geometry in both supersonic maneuver and low observability performance.

In 1981, the Air Force developed a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter as a new air superiority fighter. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, higher power propulsion systems and stealth technology. Air Force leaders believed these new technologies would make aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 obsolete by the early 21st century.
Subsequent to studies, an RFP was issued in July 1986. In October 1986, the Phase I Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val) program was initiated, and the F-22's operational requirements, or Key Performance Parameters, were established. These parameters were documented in the System Operational Requirements document in 1987 and supported a Milestone I decision. Two contractor teams, Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas and Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics were selected in October 1986 for the initial 50 month demonstration/validation phase flyoff between the YF-22 and YF-23, the original designations of the F/A-22.
In August 1991, the YF-22 was declared the winner.
The F-22A Raptor achieved Initial Operational Capability [IOC] on 15 December 2005.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Rahul M »

Pratyush wrote:
Rahul M wrote:pratyush ji, I kept strictly within the confines of the LCA Mk1 capabilities, so as to make this as realistic as possible. with additional armour its payload will decrease to those levels.
a normal LCA squadron can operate one flight of this variant without creating problems in maintenance.

for MOABs ( :P ) we will use MKI's and the like. this one is meant strictly for close air support or CAS. strafing and bombing enemy troops and vehicles in front of IA units as they move.
for other roles it can carry rockets and 250 kg PGMs.
Rahul,

If I try to seriously critiq your design. Mind you it will be from my musharraf onlee :(( . The performance of the design is seriously underwhelming. The Hawk can do more or less everything your design can. {nehi janab, you are only looking at payload. a fighter is much more than just its payload. FBW, a highly developed MMI, mature MC and avionics, internal jammers, OBOGs etc all these separate a true fighter like the LCA from an AJT that can also drop munitions}However if you agree for me to take your idea and concept and radically redisign the aircraft. Then this what I can come up with.

The capabilities to do this already exist with the HAL and domestic industry. If approved by the IAF, it can be finished by the HAL in next 5 years. With a budget of less then 500Mil us $. The cost per AC will not exceed 10 mil US $ and we will have our own close support and battlefield intradiction aircraft.

The Ideas are as follows. It is to reuse as much of the existing capabilities as possible.

1) Use the Kaveri as is. It has less thrust then the 404 no problems. Eliminate the Reheat as well. It should now generate as much thrust as the Arado (??) of the IAF Jaguar.
2) Use the EW fit of the Tejas
3) Design the airframe in a way tha it can lift 4 to 5 tons of lift and is optimised for subsonic filight only. Bacically an Indian SU 25. First prototype can take to the air in 3 to 5 years if the start is made now. Considering the sitara experience.
4) Use darin 3 of the Jaguar.

{I agree that what you say will be a good design but would it make commercial sense ? that is where my objection lies.}


You can argue that the Mig 27 can also do the same job. I will agree that it can. But it will not last forever. You can say that the AMCA will replace it. I will both agree and disagree with you. The AMCA will be an over kill for CAS / COIN type job. {somewhat true}So for the dumb and dirty missions we will need to have this paltform.
{the only sticking point is that is this need big enough to justify an entirely new design ? considering that we will be operating around 250 LCH and equal that number of WSI Dhruvs ? }
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Pratyush »

Rahul,

I had not seen your reply to my post. Will address the points raised by you at the bottom

I feel that the IAF will require at least 150 of these aircrafts. If the Hard Air Cover doctrine of the IAF is a fact and not fiction. (One Sq for every comitted IA division on the front).

That being the case The numbers are good enough. Also the reduced cost will make it an attractive proposition for a lot of poorer Airforces. That will give an export market of another 100 airframes world wide 250 airframes is a good enough number for the design to be contamplated.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Rahul M »

Rahul M wrote:boss that one is still a derivative design, not a from scratch de novo one.
That's the reason why it will be cheap and require minimum testing. Though the payload will be miniscule as compared to the 27 or the Jaguar. (That is my reservation with the concept). Address that and we are good to go.
firstly, jag is actually a different category fighter, it's not a CAS bird per se but a fighter bomber. it will be replaced by the AMCA. even the mig-27 was originally meant to be a strike fighter rather than a CAS aircraft. the VVS already had the Su-25 for CAS.
given IAF's current plans, it does not need another strike aircraft, right ?

coming to payload, that is just a very conservative guess about what LCA Mk1's payload would be if it is modified for CAS. even then, 1.5 tonnes would be what your typical MIg-27 would carry in a CAS mission so that's not too much of a problem. more so, given the accuracy of newer munitions which reduce the need for large bombs.
if in stead of Mk1 the Mk2 is chosen as the base the payload should be around 4 tonnes.
Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Sandeep_ghosh »

Dear Gurus,

Can the BAE hawk be upgraded for CAS role... specifically anti armour role,
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Indranil »

vivek_ahuja wrote:As an example, I remember reading it on this thread somewhere the notion of perhaps a twin engine Tejas etc. Here's an outlook:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/796/lca2.jpg

-Vivek
Vivek ji, I very rarely visit this thread. But I couldn't resist myself from congratulating you on this fabulous work. It really would be one of the best looking fighters out there if it is built today.

I have just a few suggestions. See if you find it worth your time. I am presuming (partly from the nozzles) that you are strapping 2 GE 414s on this.

1. This would mean that that you would have to enlarge the aircraft for higher fuel (atleast). So is this rendering a scale up from the present LCA dimensions?
2. If it is could you please calculate the empty weight of this plane according to this scale up?
3. I think the wings would be scaled up in the same proportion. Do you have the aerofoil of the LCA wing? Even if not, we can second guess the MTOW. I am very sure that we will end up with a fighter in the medium class. Hence you could safely increase the number of pylons.
4. With the engines now side by side, the compressor blades will become visible. How will the intakes be designed now? the double-S like the Euro canards?
5. If hiding the compressor face is not a concern, then it is better to pull the engines apart (like on the Mig-29/Su-27). Aerodynamically it produces more lift. If your nozzles have vectoring, it gives a better torque too. Also a straight intake is one of the best intakes that one can find.

Probably, I would do what PakFA did to the Su-27 design. I wouldn't go for all out stealth. I would space the engines, so that front on, the would be next to the cockpit. I would bump up the shoulder behind the cockpit for more fuel. The volume of bump up would be guided through Whitcomb's rule. I would keep it flat to maintain pilot visibility. The intakes would be S-shaped but only in the vertical plane. In the space between the engine nacelles, I would place an internal weapons carriage (Note this will increase the body lift if the cockpit floor and the weapons bay doors are in the same plane). I don't think that I would stick with a single rudder. The problem is that with a longer plane and bigger wings I don't think I would have much yaw control at high AoA. I would rather put 2 rudders one each on one engine, preferably to the inside. If I can build it on the inside, I don't need it to be all moving. I think we can't make it that way as the engine would come in the way of swiveling. Anyways, I would simply retain the bleed channel from the air intakes to over the wings like in the LCA. This technique is used in the F-18 E/F. Otherwise, if I put the rudder on top of the engine, I can build short all moving rudders.

I don't know what the CS-area curve would come out for this new fighter, but if I still have to retain the huge hydraulic housings, I would rather make small hydraulics small. I would combine the volume of two of these housings on each wing and try to make one of the wing hard-points into an internal one.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Indranil »

Of your design is perfect for building a AJT. Scale this puppy down. Bring it's empty weight down to 4.5T to 5.5T. Strap on 2 Adours/AI-222K-25F/Honeywell F125 and voila you would have a very dependable and high performance trainer at par with the Yak-130/L-15.

Frankly, I am in love with your rendering. It is so clean. Aesthetically I would give it more marks than any of the MMRCA contenders and even our Tejas :).

P.S. I suggest that you watermark across the renderings to eradicate illegal copying.
Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Sandeep_ghosh »

Dear friends...

Can there be a chopper version of A10 .. with the entire chopper built around the GAU 8 AVENEGER gattling gun ... A helicoptor gunship .. which has a "real gun " on it and not a 7.62 joke
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Sandeep sir,
The recoil of the gun alone would make it unfeasible for a helicopter around the avenger. The recoil from the canon is so much that the almost entire thrust generated by the A-10's engine gets canceled out.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Rahul M »

what makes the GAU-8 a 'real gun' which a 20 or 30mm cannon is not ?
no attack helicopter carries a 7.62 'joke' which is a caliber found in infantry assault rifles.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

Sandeep_ghosh wrote:Dear friends...

Can there be a chopper version of A10 .. with the entire chopper built around the GAU 8 AVENEGER gattling gun ... A helicoptor gunship .. which has a "real gun " on it and not a 7.62 joke

I think its a great idea although I don't know if it is feasible. Why don't you look up the weights of some of the bigger helos and the weight of a Gatling with say 1000 rounds of 20 mm ammunition and then lets discuss it on here to see if it sounds like a good idea.

After all the A-10 (or any other fixed wing aircraft) is actually slowed down by the Gatling and slowing down will cause it to lose altitude. But a helo need not lose altitude - although it might be pushed around a bit by the recoil :mrgreen: But a helo will be slower and more vulnerable to ground fire.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17168
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Rahul M »

shiv ji, the GAU-8 is a remnant from an age when most tanks had skins thin enough to be shredded by 30mm cannons. it made sense back in the 70's. now modern tank armour is impervious to shells of that caliber while soft skinned vehicles go down equally well to single barreled cannons of even smaller calibers.

GAU-8 is a good weapon for showing TFTAness but has little practical value.

then of course there is the weight and recoil. you would require a Mi-26 size monster to handle the recoil. :eek:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by shiv »

Rahul M wrote: GAU-8 is a good weapon for showing TFTAness but has little practical value.

We are talking about the feasibility of TFTAness. I think once you start discussing the nitty gritty it will become fairly obvious as to why no such TFTA helo exists. Brilliant timepass idea which might lead to some overall gyan. There are a whole lot of American "icons" that are admired and desired by generations of non American jingos who have been exposed to glowing write ups, gripping Discovery documentaries and "TFTA winner" fiction based on them. The desire to have all that is fine - but let people use their heads first and ask what it takes to make such a helo.
Sandeep_ghosh
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 27 Oct 2010 07:19
Location: Unkel Sam's pot garden

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Sandeep_ghosh »

Ok .. looks like a dud thought... its, just the crazy amount of lead these gattling guns can lay down got me thinking. I was thinking of a chopper bourne gattling gun making minced meat out of fast attack patrol boats. thats it ... thanks shiv and rahul
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12196
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

Hey, dont be discouraged, please take a look at both the US Cobra (In different iterations) and the Italian Mangusta. Some thing like what you envisig ought to be possible for the Apache size airframe. If implimented like the the two helos.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Bala Vignesh »

vivek_ahuja wrote: I will post my conceptual efforts in a few hours time as soon as my PDO software is done processing my requirements...

-Vivek
Vivek Sir,
Waiting for your crunched numbers...
Drishyaman
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 15 Aug 2010 18:52
Location: Originally Silchar, Assam

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Drishyaman »

Can we have some Chinese Inspiration for or AJT / LIFT /CAS aircraft? The Chinese Guihou JL-9 is a twin seater trainer. Following are the specifications :

Empty weight: 4.96 t (10,935 lb)
Loaded weight: 7.8 t (17,196 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 9.8 t (21,605 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Guizhou Liyang WP-13F(C) afterburning turbojet Dry thrust: 44.1 kN (9,914 lb) Thrust with afterburner: 66.7 kN (14,650 lb)

The Engine seems to be in the same range as our Kaveri. Apart from this we can use much of the Technology from Tejas and IJT like FBW, Glass cockpit, bubble canopy.
We have already mastered the art of wing design, fuselage design, landing gear design etc to name a few.
We can have this with a budget of $200 to $300 million as most of the technology needed is already available.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by SaiK »

assume: if we have to modify LCA airframe to do a mach 2.2.

what changes should be done?
drawings would be great.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Gaur »

SaiK wrote:assume: if we have to modify LCA airframe to do a mach 2.2.

what changes should be done?
drawings would be great.
No aerodynamic expert but practically the whole fighter has to be redisigned. The wings have to be appropriately angled considering the mach cone. The aircraft will also have to be lenghthened to have a longer airduct which will be needed to slow the airflow. Obviously the inlet have to be redisigned.

But more importantly, why would we even want a 2.2 mach fighter?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by SaiK »

let us also assume we can't increase the length and weight, but reshape is allowed. mach 2.2 is just a given for the assumptions. if you consider that is out of scope for LCA modifications, then it may be concluded that we can't do it.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Gaur »

SaiK wrote:let us also assume we can't increase the length and weight, but reshape is allowed. mach 2.2 is just a given for the assumptions. if you consider that is out of scope for LCA modifications, then it may be concluded that we can't do it.
Again, I have no expertise to give any proper answer but to my layman mind, the answer will be no. To my mind, the LCA cannot be "modified" for 2.2 mach. You would need a totally different aircraft with at best a fleeting similarity to LCA. At 2.2 mach, the mach cone would be too narrow to allow for such spread of wings. The wings will have to be much more swept back. Heck, even the fuselage may prove to be too fat to fully reside inside the mach cone. So, even if through some magic the weight and length remain the same, the new aircraft would certainly not be called a modified LCA. It would be a totally a new one.

But your question intrigues me. Is there something particular you are trying to convey through this line of thinking?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by SaiK »

nothing specific but was looking at various thoughts that comes to a new designer.

--
http://pdf.aiaa.org/JournalsOnline/PDFF ... 3634f3a3TR
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by Victor »

What was envisaged at the start of this thread is a jugaad fighter based on existing hardware that can be flying 6 months from now. It will be used only in the hilly Himalayan foothills to disrupt enemy movement which can only take place along narrow, winding roads in deep valleys. It won't take much to bring a column to a halt in this environment--a couple of 500 pound dumb bombs is enough to cause a road to be blocked for days. If a column is trapped, it becomes a sitting duck.

Armour is likely to be non-existant because the roads on our side of the border are too narrow and crude. Likewise, if our jugaad fighter is nimble enough to fly along the deep, winding valleys, radar, AA guns and even MANPADS will be relatively useless since they will be fleeting targets.

Given this environment, the ideal answer as Abhibhushan said originally is the Kiran jet. It will work as-is but would be even better if it could be up-engined and fitted with strengthened hardpoints and a more lethal gun. IMO, a 2-man crew would be an asset because flying along the valleys will require the full concentration of the pilot as would acquiring and attacking targets. The likely speed in this environment would be 200-300 mph but due to the close proximity of the surrounding mountains, the targets would present themselves for a few seconds and have to be tackled in a single pass.

I truly hope that someone takes the initiative and turns this into reality. However, knowing our decision makers, it is simply too simple, quick, cheap and effective an answer and will meet resistance for these very reasons if not for the lack of kickback potential.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Design your own fighter

Post by SaiK »

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

hence ..
Post Reply