.Technologically there is room for growth with latest tech infusion beyond 116kN. But its not practically feasible. As Brar pointed out, if GE continues with that path it would mean that other promising areas which GE is working and which are the primary focus now, would have missed something essential. Those paths provide more organic growth and thus would take precedence in attracting funding rather than any further development of F414.nachiket wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that the F414-EPE (110kN) version would be its ultimate development. I don't think there is any room for further growth in that engine. So if we need something better in a future MLU we'll have to look elsewhere.
It would practically be a new engine entirely just the same dimensions. Not saying it can't be done, but such a comprehensive (and expensive) development is unlikely for reasons you and Brar stated.JayS wrote:nachiket wrote: Technologically there is room for growth with latest tech infusion beyond 116kN. But its not practically feasible. As Brar pointed out, if GE continues with that path it would mean that other promising areas which GE is working and which are the primary focus now, would have missed something essential. Those paths provide more organic growth and thus would take precedence in attracting funding rather than any further development of F414.
Well, whether its a completely new engine or not would depend on how much work is needed. I haven't really given it a thought. Since its highly unlikely, lets not spend time on it. This is wrong thread anyway.nachiket wrote:It would practically be a new engine entirely just the same dimensions. Not saying it can't be done, but such a comprehensive (and expensive) development is unlikely for reasons you and Brar stated.JayS wrote:
That pdf states the ENhanced engine being in the 116kN class. It does not mention the Dry thrust value and how much that has increased over the base F414.
Sounds a lot like Marketing article for Russians, on how Russia is helping AMCA.NachiketM wrote:Whilst we are discussing the engines for AMCA is there any news on the TVC in development for the AMCA engines... Didn't the DRDO have a tie-up with the Russians for developing the TVC tech and I believe it was in an advanced stage... whatever happened of it ...???
https://defenceupdate.in/indias-indigen ... echnology/
I did a hack job in MS Paint to grab and push the paint around.. someone who is good at can get it better. but heck, I wanted to see how it would look if I push those gaps between modules closer/ Don't point me back to that age-old LCA hack jobKartik wrote:Just for the sake of looking at it whenever I read this thread again.
Does look beautiful, doesn't she?!
Love it already. I hope the designers have been reading Indranil's rants about wing-body blending and do a commendable job.SaiK wrote:Here, I cleaned up a little bit more. Added BRF chappa.
stabs are in place now.
failure teaches survivors. The rest are fcuked.Singha wrote:
but they all lack several key components of a true 5th generation aircraft such as:To make a long story short, the difference between 4th and 5th generation aircraft is really huge and requires not one, but several very complex “technological jumps” especially in the integrations of numerous complex systems.
- a low radar cross-section (“stealth”),
- the capability to fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners,
- the ability to carry weapons inside a special weapons bay (as opposed to outside, under its wings or body)
- an advanced “situational awareness” (network-centric) capability (sensor and external data fusion)
https://thesaker.is/making-sense-of-the ... -in-syria/
quite true .. i guess you need many jumps from 4.5 to get to true 5th gen .. system wise ..radars to sensor fusion and algorithms .. apart from materials .. dont think its that easy .. Russia and China still havent despite their immense resourcesSaiK wrote:Related data for analysis..but they all lack several key components of a true 5th generation aircraft such as:To make a long story short, the difference between 4th and 5th generation aircraft is really huge and requires not one, but several very complex “technological jumps” especially in the integrations of numerous complex systems.
- a low radar cross-section (“stealth”),
- the capability to fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners,
- the ability to carry weapons inside a special weapons bay (as opposed to outside, under its wings or body)
- an advanced “situational awareness” (network-centric) capability (sensor and external data fusion)
https://thesaker.is/making-sense-of-the ... -in-syria/
Very superficial and misleading comment. Stealth shaping is perhaps the biggest struggle with 5th Gen. Avionics being next. Get this done and you have an aircraft that is asymptotically close to being Stealth without actually being one.ashishvikas wrote:The first two AMCA tech demonstrators are not likely to have many 5G features. They will basically demonstrate the new avionics suite and stealth shaping. Plus India's ability to configure a twin-engine jet.
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/970 ... 71553?s=19
Indeed.Rishi_Tri wrote:Very superficial and misleading comment. Stealth shaping is perhaps the biggest struggle with 5th Gen. Avionics being next. Get this done and you have an aircraft that is asymptotically close to being Stealth without actually being one.ashishvikas wrote:The first two AMCA tech demonstrators are not likely to have many 5G features. They will basically demonstrate the new avionics suite and stealth shaping. Plus India's ability to configure a twin-engine jet.
https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/970 ... 71553?s=19
++Haridas wrote:Indeed.Rishi_Tri wrote:
Very superficial and misleading comment. Stealth shaping is perhaps the biggest struggle with 5th Gen. Avionics being next. Get this done and you have an aircraft that is asymptotically close to being Stealth without actually being one.
https://twitter.com/HaridasKukkur/statu ... 82688?s=19
But that is the core (difficult part) to stealth combat aircraft development?
The packaging for all internal weapon storage and conformal frequency selective antennas of the electronics is the first cut to address the technical aspect.
Correct. But that's next step for the folks who compare tick mark to tick mark while comparing two fighters. When one sits down and thinks seriously about each of the capabilities and what engineering changes are needed to achieve the,, one can easily arrive at a conclusion that you have mentioned. But sadly very few see it that way. We see people coming up with suggestions like adding internal bays to LCA, every week.brar_w wrote:These things are also tied to one another and the measuring criteria is not the stand along capability of each of these expensive and hard to engineer concepts (such as sensor fusion) but the overall effectiveness of the system as a whole relative to mission objectives (air-defense, strike, CAS, SEAD etc). For example, if you put the sensor fusion capability of the F-22 or F-35 on an F-15 or F-16, it will be not as effective as it is in these aircraft. The other characteristics such as the degree of freedom to get closer to potential targets, supercruise in the case of the F-22, and the ability to network and communicate discreetly and share SA all comes together to enable these things. Pilots who have flown both these capabilities point to the perils of using legacy aircraft metrics to measure the them (F22 or F35) because they enable concepts of operations and TTPs on account of their collective capability that would not be possible with older aircraft, so if you operate them like the previous aircraft you are not making full use of there potential. It is almost like starting with a clean slate and developing fresh CONEMPs.
Even the most well equipped (money and technical knowhow) teams of operators and developers take anywhere from 2 to 4 years to study requirements, develop an AOA, war game to validate some of their assumptions and capabilities before proceeding with a set of concrete requirements that they then go back and forth with industry with to better understand feasibility in terms of cost, capability and schedule. We on the other hand on forums,raid the internet and brochures and can easily mix and match..JayS wrote:But sadly very few see it that way. We see people coming up with suggestions like adding internal bays to LCA, every week.
.We are going OT here, last one from me on this. As one quotes goes, the more you know, the less you talk about it.brar_w wrote:Even the most well equipped (money and technical knowhow) teams of operators and developers take anywhere from 2 to 4 years to study requirements, develop an AOA, war game to validate some of their assumptions and capabilities before proceeding with a set of concrete requirements that they then go back and forth with industry with to better understand feasibility in terms of cost, capability and schedule. We on the other hand raid the internet and brochures and can easily mix and match..JayS wrote:But sadly very few see it that way. We see people coming up with suggestions like adding internal bays to LCA, every week.
brar_w wrote: Not this particular article, but I have posted about the impact of these things on the amount of re-works and touch labor required to complete an aircraft.I was actually surprised that Lockheed was able to deliver all 66 aircraft on time (despite loosing nearly 3 weeks to a productions stop) in 2017 as prior to this each aircraft delivery was delayed by at least 10 days or so... This is also why each and every aircraft that is produced gets its RCS tested prior to delivery to customer. Doing VLO is hard, and if Lockheed, after producing nearly 300 F-35s, 180+ F-22's, and 60+ F117's is still going through the learning curve then one can imagine how challenging the tolerances and requirements are and how closely the customer measures them.
Prasad wrote:I think Brarji posted on this issue earlier.
Stealth features responsible for half of F-35 defects, Lockheed program head states
“That’s something that no other weapon system since the F-22 has had to do, and the F-22 never did it at the rates that we’re trying to do it. Once we get a handle on that, you’re going to see a dramatic reduction in the quality escapes that are made around the LO system,” he said.
In order to reduce the F-35’s signature, the panels making up its airframe must be precisely aligned. As each panel goes through the production process — build, then installation, then joining to other panels — small deviations can make it very difficult to meet standards, even for an experienced mechanic.
Still, he allowed that some human error remains.
“On the other hand, we inadvertently scratch the coating system, and we have to repaint it. Or when the mechanics spray the airplane [with LO coating], not all of it is robotically sprayed. There’s some overspray, and they have to go clean that,” he said.
