AMCA News and Discussions

Locked
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

No not complete RCS testing but there is equipment and an electronic database they maintain to track events and wear and then model how it impacts RCS over operational life. This is then used to determine sustainment and when to restore RCS and to use trained maintainers to go ahead and apply those processes to get back to the desired levels (which like I said may only be 80% to the possible value as readiness and capability is always balanced when you have finite O&S budgets). The USAF, which has moved through multiple generations of LO aircraft has carved out a niche area of LO Aircraft structure maintenance (LOASM) as a career field. I believe I had poster an article describing this in the old JSF thread.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-obs ... -aviation/
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_P »

Basically removing all the jargon, in one word - 'compromise'.

The 0.005 sq mtr RCS or whatever it is out of the factory will not be the same after the first flight on the field and will progressively deteriorate unless enough time is spent, on field or off field, to re-achieve the initial level.

My question - approximately what is this time, as compared to say an F15 strike eagle or an F18E/F or a Su30
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Manish_P wrote: My question - approximately what is this time, as compared to say an F15 strike eagle or an F18E/F or a Su30
This is a tough question to answer as there is never a true "apples to apples" comparison given disparate systems. If one focuses just on RCS and signature management then it is obviously not comparable since the F-15 or Su-30 doesn't really need anything routinely there other than basic RAM paint that has been used since the 80s and 90s. But overall there are many areas where 5th generation aircraft are easier to maintain and have components with higher reliability so the net result is what needs to be compared.

Another way to look at this is that the F-22A (stealth aircraft with signature requirements) in 2015 had a mission capability rate of 67% vs around 71% of that of the F-15C and E fleet. Similarly, the only USAF F-35A operational Unit (at Hill AFB Utah) is hitting a mission availability rate of 70% (2017) and I am willing to bet that these squadrons are cycling through Red-Flag or similar large force exercises, and are flying much more than an average F-22 or F-15 unit given they are at an early stage of their learning and have deployed abroad much more frequently and will be deploying even more through the course of the year.
The 0.005 sq mtr RCS or whatever it is out of the factory will not be the same after the first flight on the field and will progressively deteriorate unless enough time is spent, on field or off field, to re-achieve the initial level.
Since signature management and stealth are not exactly new, I am sure they have figured out ways to model dynamic RCS and its effects over time. In fact, the USAF keeps a couple of aircraft constantly kitted for dynamic RCS testing with both RF and IR sensors and many aircraft are seen alongside them from time to time. LINK LINK LINK. Others, as they build up their LO fleets would likely do the same as it is a good investment to make sure you are operating your equipment in the right way and optimizing the capability. It also feeds back into your design as you produce next generation systems.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5414
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Manish_P »

brar_w wrote:
Manish_P wrote: My question - approximately what is this time, as compared to say an F15 strike eagle or an F18E/F or a Su30
This is a tough question to answer as there is never a true "apples to apples" comparison given disparate systems. If one focuses just on RCS and signature management then it is obviously not comparable since the F-15 or Su-30 doesn't really need anything routinely there other than basic RAM paint that has been used since the 80s and 90s. But overall there are many areas where 5th generation aircraft are easier to maintain and have components with higher reliability so the net result is what needs to be compared.
Yes. My bad.. i didn't formulate the question correctly (unfortunate effect of travelling in a rather bumpy public bus).

For a 5th Gen stealth/VLO is (or has been projected to be) the defining difference. I am finding it a bit difficult to formulate my question but it is basically this - say after a 2 hours flight over hostile territory, how much time (very approx), to do the next flight with the same level of RCS a) when stationed in the US b) when stationed on non US bases
brar_w wrote: Another way to look at this is that the F-22A (stealth aircraft with signature requirements) in 2015 had a mission capability rate of 67% vs around 71% of that of the F-15C and E fleet. Similarly, the only USAF F-35A operational Unit (at Hill AFB Utah) is hitting a mission availability rate of 70% (2017) and I am willing to bet that these squadrons are cycling through Red-Flag or similar large force exercises, and are flying much more than an average F-22 or F-15 unit given they are at an early stage of their learning and have deployed abroad much more frequently and will be deploying even more through the course of the year.
What is the difference in capability rate and availability rate. Is the baseline time (period unit) the same?

PS: Please take this over to the International or US military thread as it would be OT here (i am not very familiar with how to move posts)
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Manish_P wrote: say after a 2 hours flight over hostile territory, how much time (very approx), to do the next flight with the same level of RCS a) when stationed in the US b) when stationed on non US bases

I think the question is immaterial for a whole lot of operators out there because as I said (and as the interview I provided states) RCS margins are built into the design which allows for operational degradation. At the unit-level, you usually have more operationally oriented metrics that measure the overall capability of an aircraft to perform a mission. So an operator will have to see and certify that the aircraft is not Non-Mission-Capable after a few sorties on account of work that needs to be done to restore its RCS. The whole idea is to not have to do this after each and every 2-hour flight but allow it to gracefully degrade, with margin built in, so that combat effectiveness can still be maintained for a prolonged period of time. If the picture you have in your head is that after each and every flight the aircraft's RCS needs to be restored, then you are mistaken as this was perhaps something that needed to be done with first generation stealth aircraft... nowadays you do not have to do it. They measure overall fleet touch ours and present the data as such (like for every one hour I need X or XX hours as maintenance) but that is for the entire enterprise like taking the overall number of hours the fleet has flown and dividing it by the number of man-hours spent to sustain that fleet at the unit-level.

The rest I'll respond in the Int. Aero thread.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

I'd not be going OT by posting here for discussions (hope).


Will America's Bombers Be Able to Defeat Russian Air Defense?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ense-24826

“The US is now developing its fourth generation of stealth aircraft. The computational capabilities that were available to design the F-117 and B-2 are dwarfed by the power now available to design teams,” writes the Mitchell Institute essay, by Maj. Gen. Mark Barrett, USAF (Ret.) and Col. Mace Carpenter, USAF (Ret.)

Stealth technology works by engineering an aircraft with external contours and heat signatures designed to elude detection from enemy radar systems. The absence of defined edges, noticeable heat emissions, weapons hanging on pylons or other easily detectable aircraft features, means that radar "pings" can have trouble receiving a return electromagnetic signal allowing them to identify an approaching bomber. Since the speed of light (electricity) is known, and the time of travel of electromagnetic signals can be determined as well, computer algorithms are then able to determine the precise distance of an enemy object.

However, when it comes to stealth aircraft, the return signal may be either non-existant or of an entirely different character than that of an actual aircraft. A stealth aircraft will, for instance, appear in the shape of a bird or insect to enemy radar.

Given the increased threat envelope created by cutting edge air defenses, and the acknowledgement that stealth aircraft are indeed much more vulnerable than when they first emerged, Air Force developers are increasingly viewing stealth capacity as something which includes a variety of key parameters.

This includes not only stealth configuration, IR suppression and radar-evading materials but also other important elements such as electronic warfare “jamming” defenses, operating during adverse weather conditions to lower the acoustic signature and conducting attacks in tandem with other less-stealthy aircraft likely to command attention from enemy air defense systems.

Given these factors, Air Force developers often refer to stealth configuration itself as merely one “arrow” in the quiver of approaches needed to defeat modern air defenses.

“Mixing stealthy aircraft with conventional aircraft, deception, air defense suppression, and electronic jamming will complicate an enemy’s defensive problem set by an order of magnitude,” the paper writes.

The authors of the paper explain that newer stealth technology able to outmatch advanced multi-frequency air defenses must utilize a characteristic known as “broadband stealth.”

Multi-band or “broadband” stealth, which is designed to elude both lower frequency area “surveillance” radar as well as high-frequency “engagement radar,” puts an emphasis upon radar cross section-reducing tailless designs such as that now being envisioned for the B-21.

“The B-21 image released by the USAF depicts a design that does not use vertical flight control surfaces like tails. Without vertical surfaces to reflect radar from side aspects, the new bomber will have an RCS (Radar Cross Section) that reduces returns not only from the front and rear but also from the sides, making detection from any angle a challenge,” the Mitchell Institute writes.



Stealth fighter jets, such as the F-22 and F-35, have an entirely different configuration and rely upon some vertical flight control surfaces such as tails and wings. Being more vulnerable to lower frequency surveillance radars due to having a fighter jet configuration, an F-35 or F-22 would depend upon its speed, maneuverability and air-to-air attack systems to fully defend against enemies. Given that fighter jets require tails, wings and other structures necessary to performance, they are naturally inherently less stealthy than a high-altitude bomber.


Newer methods of IR or thermal signature reduction are connected to engine and exhaust placement. Internally configured engines, coupled with exhaust pipes on the top of an aircraft can massively lower the heat emissions from an aircraft, such as the structure of the current B-2 - the authors of the essay say.

“Hot gases from the engine can be further cooled using mixing techniques in the exhaust system,” the paper writes.

Technical progress in the area of advanced computer simulations are providing developers with an unprecedented advantage in designing the new bomber as well.

“Simulations of interactions between designs and various threat radars are now far more accurate and realistic, allowing additional refinement of stealth design solutions before any hardware is actually built or tested,” the essay writes.

The new aircraft will be designed to have global reach, in part by incorporating a large arsenal of long-range weapons. The B-21 is being engineered to carry existing weapons as well as nuclear bombs and emerging and future weapons, Air Force officials explained.

It if's arsenal is anything like the B-2, it will like have an ability to drop a range of nuclear weapons, GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions and possibly even the new Air Force nuclear-armed cruise missile now in development called the LRSO - Long Range Stand Off weapon. It is also conceivable, according to Air Force developers, that the new bomber will one day be armed with yet-to-be seen weapons technology
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Pratyush »

I have been reading with interest the discussion on the degradation of the stealth character of fifth generation jets with fascination.

Does any one know how many sorties before the stealth becomes completely compromised. That the aircraft is as visible on the radar at a 4th gen platform.

The other question that I have is after how many hours of combat flying the aircraft will have to be grounded for a full inspection.

Unless we know the answer to that all the discussion is irrelevant.

PS I am sure that if stealth coating was be all and end all of stealth. IAF would not be open to AMCA.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Pratyush wrote:Does anyone know how many sorties before the stealth becomes completely compromised. That the aircraft is as visible on the radar at a 4th gen platform.
Do you seriously believe anyone here would have an answer to that question? :) Regardless, as I said earlier "Stealth" is not the same on all platforms. An F-22 is much more labor-intensive than the F-35 and both are significantly less labor intensive than the F-117 and B-2. With advances in technology, and through experience they have been able to reduce the role of coatings and embed much of the RAM directly into the skin of the aircraft. Furthermore, with better analytics and modeling tools, they have been able to build margins so that you can still take damage and know whether your system is still suitable for a particular mission or not. This saves unnecessary work that could very easily be deferred. Also, much like advances in avionics, training aids and simulators, RAM and coatings also advance and as they do you can think about retrofitting them back into your older aircraft so that they become more resilient than with the older systems.

This is what is happening to the F-22 at the moment where the newer generation of the coating is being incorporated into the aircraft (rumoured to be influenced by the F-35's coatings), replacing completely the one developed specifically for it in the 1990s. But this isn't happening at the flight-line or at the squadron level. This is happening at the Depot level either by cycling the aircraft through the depots during their routine depot maintenance periods or accelerating that and getting them earlier in case they were having mission capability degradation on account of RCS at a higher pace than the other fleet. To that end, each individual aircraft or squadron would be slightly different depending upon where it is located, how often it is deployed and what sort of work (quality) is being done on the aircraft at the squadron level. Aircraft that regularly operate in harsher climate would naturally need more maintenance and a better crew than those that operate in moderate climates and aren't pushed around as much. But this is true for pretty much every other high-tech system on these aircraft, so if you are going to deploy with a "skinny" crew, expect to hit the depot faster and stay there longer etc.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-obs ... -aviation/
Does any one know how many sorties before the stealth becomes completely compromised. That the aircraft is as visible on the radar at a 4th gen platform.
Shaping plays a big role in RCS reduction on all LO aircraft. Coatings enhance this and wide-band RAM helps further but at the heart of it is the shape of the aircraft. So technically, you can lose a lot if not most of your coatings and have other dings but still have a much lower RCS compared to an older generation aircraft carrying external weapons, pods or fuel tanks.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Pratyush »

I should have said I don't want Brar to respond to my post. :((

As I knew of all you said. It was for other members. :((
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Outside of the US the second largest operator of Low Observable aircraft has less than a dozen aircraft that have been operational for less than a year (weeks to months in some cases). So where will the data come from if not from what has been shared by the two US services?
pravula
BRFite
Posts: 360
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 05:01

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by pravula »

Pratyush wrote:I have been reading with interest the discussion on the degradation of the stealth character of fifth generation jets with fascination.

Does any one know how many sorties before the stealth becomes completely compromised. That the aircraft is as visible on the radar at a 4th gen platform.

The other question that I have is after how many hours of combat flying the aircraft will have to be grounded for a full inspection.

Unless we know the answer to that all the discussion is irrelevant.

PS I am sure that if stealth coating was be all and end all of stealth. IAF would not be open to AMCA.
42. :P
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by fanne »

23...F-22 has stealth, F-23 does not.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

IAF speeds up hunt for new fighter jets to add muscle

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... aPGtN.html

This multi-billion-dollar project to build 114 jets will be “directly linked” to the development of an indigenous futuristic stealth fighter – the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), the person added.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Neshant »

Austin wrote:IAF speeds up hunt for new fighter jets to add muscle

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... aPGtN.html

This multi-billion-dollar project to build 114 jets will be “directly linked” to the development of an indigenous futuristic stealth fighter – the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), the person added.
Excellent idea.

How about taking it one step further and getting the chosen country to absorb at least some of the AMCAs into their air force as well?
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by srai »

^^^
The belief that foreigners will give ToT and help India with its 5th Gen is laughable!
Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Bart S »

srai wrote:^^^
The belief that foreigners will give ToT and help India with its 5th Gen is laughable!
Even more laughable is the idea that this needs to be publicly declared and put out in the open in writing :shock:

Typical socialist committee/bureaucrat style of working that puts all our cards on the table and gets nothing done.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Austin »

I dont think we would need any specific technology for AMCA that we dont have via Tejas or cant be developed , Aerodynamics , Avionic etc we are there ,Radar we will reach AESA soon via IAI.

The only area which is a big bottle neck for AMCA is 5th Gen Engine Technology something DRDO may work with Snecma but thats a long project.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4567
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by JayS »

Austin wrote:IAF speeds up hunt for new fighter jets to add muscle

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... aPGtN.html

This multi-billion-dollar project to build 114 jets will be “directly linked” to the development of an indigenous futuristic stealth fighter – the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), the person added.
Personally, I feel this is a junk article.
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4056
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ArjunPandit »

^^Reporters can think what they want, i have high hopes that powers that be in, have realized this fallacy after negotiating with every fighter manufacturer. Hopefully they would have realized "home grown" fighters are the solution and these competitions are just to bide time and see if some apple falls in their laps
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Indranil »

JayS wrote:
Austin wrote:IAF speeds up hunt for new fighter jets to add muscle

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... aPGtN.html

This multi-billion-dollar project to build 114 jets will be “directly linked” to the development of an indigenous futuristic stealth fighter – the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), the person added.
Personally, I feel this is a junk article.
Exactly. It is not even possible to collate everything that ADA/DRDO needs for AMCA in one month. In AESA radar, they would love GaN tech, will anybody give? In the engine they require material tech for the core. Will anybody give? Other than that, what else? Ejectors can't come from anybody but LM and UAC. F-35 and F-22 are not for sale to India. So ....
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18263
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Rakesh »

ToT needs to banned from the MoD's vocabulary. JVs need to come in.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Mihir »

It might have something to do with Boeing's earlier offer.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2016/11 ... tener.html
...Boeing proposes that the manufacturing facility and supply eco-system that it builds up for the F/A-18 in India in the event it is chosen, could be used to produce the AMCA. The existing facility could be leveraged, precluding the need for a greenfield setup elsewhere...

..there is the suggestion that Boeing could be available to help along the AMCA programme directly as a partner or consultant in such a way that it makes the Block 2 Super Hornet -> Advanced Super Hornet -> AMCA flow more seamlessly from a development-to-manufacturing perspective.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by kit »

brar_w wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Does anyone know how many sorties before the stealth becomes completely compromised. That the aircraft is as visible on the radar at a 4th gen platform.
Do you seriously believe anyone here would have an answer to that question? :) Regardless, as I said earlier "Stealth" is not the same on all platforms. An F-22 is much more labor-intensive than the F-35 and both are significantly less labor intensive than the F-117 and B-2. With advances in technology, and through experience they have been able to reduce the role of coatings and embed much of the RAM directly into the skin of the aircraft. Furthermore, with better analytics and modeling tools, they have been able to build margins so that you can still take damage and know whether your system is still suitable for a particular mission or not. This saves unnecessary work that could very easily be deferred. Also, much like advances in avionics, training aids and simulators, RAM and coatings also advance and as they do you can think about retrofitting them back into your older aircraft so that they become more resilient than with the older systems.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-obs ... -aviation/
Does any one know how many sorties before the stealth becomes completely compromised. That the aircraft is as visible on the radar at a 4th gen platform.
Shaping plays a big role in RCS reduction on all LO aircraft. Coatings enhance this and wide-band RAM helps further but at the heart of it is the shape of the aircraft. So technically, you can lose a lot if not most of your coatings and have other dings but still have a much lower RCS compared to an older generation aircraft carrying external weapons, pods or fuel tanks.
ok i suppose the RCS would degrade in adverse weather .. do the aircraft undergo any check after each flight as to whether to what degree the stealth would have degraded? Does the USAF allow the F22 to fly even if the stealth was not optimal ???
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

Pratyush wrote: Does any one know how many sorties before the stealth becomes completely compromised. That the aircraft is as visible on the radar at a 4th gen platform.
42 for western aircraft
72 for Chinese aircraft
420 for Paki aicraft
1/20 for Indian aircraft
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

Sneak peek into 6th gen - I think it matters to be in this thread just to know what is ahead in this generation game.

https://youtu.be/[youtube]HPZpp_Y6Er8[/youtube]
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-forc ... deo-2018-3
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Vips »

Massa Air Force has got be very afraid as Vodka guzzlers in Natasha Land are working on 6th & 7th and 8th Generation aircafts. :lol: :lol:

In 2030 on the eve of his re-selection as Russian President, Putin can sell these planes to Pakistan, in return pakistan will promise not to perpetrate acts of terrorism in Russia. :rotfl: :rotfl:
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by putnanja »

India working on developing an advanced medium combat aircraft
India is planning to launch a programme to develop a stealth fighter named Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), according to Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

In a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, she said the feasibility study for the programme has been already completed.

"The Indian Air Force suggested Aeronautical Development Agency of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to initiate AMCA technology demonstration phase before launching full scale engineering development," she said.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Neshant »

Formally ask Japan if they are interested in cooperating on the project and inducting these planes into their AF.

Even if they say No for now, it will lead somewhere down the line.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

We should not ignore the fact the aerodynamics are at higher importance while we tailor for stealth. Lo observability can be still achieved by making the skins permeate like the LCA radome and subcutaneously deflect or absorb the signals. We can work with a bunch of grad students and nail this problem as we had dicussed on this subject earlier(some moons back). We even considered for tie up with Ulan Bator for all outsourcing :mrgreen: (saab ji already blessed this).

But it is entirely upto tejas team to take the decisions.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by kit »

SaiK wrote:Sneak peek into 6th gen - I think it matters to be in this thread just to know what is ahead in this generation game.

https://youtu.be/[youtube]HPZpp_Y6Er8[/youtube]
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-forc ... deo-2018-3
Thats one reason to say invest the resources wisely ! .. 6th gen american stealth encompasses visual stealth as well according to flight global.. much akin to the Avengers plane !
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by kit »

Vips wrote:Massa Air Force has got be very afraid as Vodka guzzlers in Natasha Land are working on 6th & 7th and 8th Generation aircafts. :lol: :lol:

In 2030 on the eve of his re-selection as Russian President, Putin can sell these planes to Pakistan, in return pakistan will promise not to perpetrate acts of terrorism in Russia. :rotfl: :rotfl:
For the time being, the designers can not say what kind of appearance the new aircraft will have. Quite possibly, the new planes will resemble space fighters from "Star Wars" films. The new aircraft will be created by several design bureaus at once. Therefore, it will not be called either Su or MiG, but will have its own original name.

pravda has outdid itself this time :rotfl:
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Kartik »

From AW&ST.

take it FWIW, since Jay Menon has in the past been wrong. Especially the part about the indigenous engine being ruled out.

NEW DELHI—India’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) reportedly has received approval for full-scale development of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) stealth fighter, with a target of flying the aircraft in 2024 and making it ready for service as early as 2030.

“Preliminary designs have been finalized after we successfully completed the configurations and the feasibility study,” says a person involved in the project at ADA, which is part of the Indian defense ministry’s Defense Research and Development Organization.

ADA is allowing at least six years between flight testing and entry into service, in part because of its experience in developing the Tejas light fighter, which needed 14 years of flight testing. Experience in verifying Tejas systems will support the shorter period for the AMCA, the official says.

The engine will be chosen soon, the ADA official says, giving no specific date. The choices are the Eurojet EJ200 of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Safran M88 of the Dassault Rafale, and the GE F414, used in the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, KF-X, Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen and the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) Tejas Mk. 2. Use of an indigenous engine has been ruled out.

Like most modern fighters, the AMCA would be a multirole aircraft. Although it will be shaped for stealth, a non-stealthy version also has been planned. Features will include a weapons bay, serpentine engine intakes, thrust vectoring, modular avionics, integrated vehicle health management, and a radar with an active electronically scanning array using gallium-nitride technology. Maximum speed is intended to be Mach 2.5 with afterburning and Mach 1.6 without.


ADA proposes that AMCA will replace the Mirage 2000 fighter and Jaguar strike aircraft in Indian Air Force service. A carrier-borne version also has been proposed. AMCA design work began informally in 2008 and became official in 2011.
Engine choice not yet made..surprising, since we thought that for the TD phase, it'll be the F-414.

Non-stealthy variant would be similar to the stealthy variant, except that it'll carry weapons externally as well, like all other stealth aircraft can. So hardpoints will be built in, that could be used whenever needed.

Weapons bay, serpentine intakes, modular avionics, IVHM and AESA radar were known. But now proposed to be a GaN radar and not GaAs radar that the Uttam is based on. Max speeds seem ridiculously high. I don't believe those figures..I mean supercruise at Mach 1.6? That's the Tejas' top speed as of now with afterburners.

Since naval version is proposed, I hope the Navy gets dug into this program right from the start. This is what Cmdr Mao had mentioned to me at an Aero India as being necessary to get an optimized naval fighter. He wanted the naval variant to be designed first, and lead to an AF variant. But parallel development or keeping the naval variant's needs would have been hopefully done before the preliminary design was finalised.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

It shouldnt just about the type of t/r modules (of course a vital sensor need for precision operations), but more on the capabilities it brings in - fusions for comms, passive scanning & tracking, lpi etc. This is where the APGs excelled
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

The challenges with integrating a GaN radar on 5th and 6th generation fighters are more severe than legacy aircraft because there is more competition for both power, and thermal requirements both of which have to be balanced with the signature requirement. This isn't about creating a GaN AESA as much as about finding novel and innovative ways to reduce the thermal footprint and cooling requirements while also extracting ever increasing levels of power (3-5 times the increase in power density compared to GaA). New materials and micro-fluidic cooling would have to be explored, de-risked and implemented for the tight margins that occur on fighter airborne sensor applications.

Otherwise, performance gains would not be commensurate with the potential of switching to the new material, given the cost. This is not the same for larger radar applications such as ground and ship based systems to the same extent. Current GaN antenna applications (like what SAAB has proposed on the Gripen) at best introduce a more efficient material which would provide linear growth in power and also reliability but really does not address the hard part which needs to be done in order to extract the potential of the new material.

From a recent paper on the subject:
Significant advances in epitaxial growth, device fabrication and design have enhanced the electrical performance to a point where thermal management is now a primary limiting factor in device and circuit operation.

In order to mitigate thermally-induced performance and reliability degradation, useable power densities are limited to 5-8 W/mm . Military electronics reliance on “remote” cooling solutions has resulted in thermal management hardware accounting for a large fraction of the SWaPC of RF components. Overcoming the remote cooling paradigm requires reducing the thermal resistance of the near-junction region and heat sink without producing deleterious effects in electrical performance. The continued use of conventional thermal conduction and spreading techniques combined with remote cooling is limiting the realization of GaN’s intrinsic electronic capabilities. Improved thermal transport solutions capable of managing localized device hot spots are required to obtain peak performance and reliable operation.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Apr 2018 17:57, edited 1 time in total.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by kit »

brar_w wrote:The challenges with integrating a GaN radar on 5th and 6th generation fighters are more severe than legacy aircraft because there is more competition for both power, and thermal requirements both of which have to be balanced with the signature requirement. This isn't about creating a GaN AESA as much as about finding novel and innovative ways to reduce the thermal footprint and cooling requirements while also extracting ever increasing levels of power (3-5 times the increase in power density compared to GaA). New materials and micro-fluidic cooling would have to be explored, de-risked and implemented for the tight margins that occur on fighter airborne sensor applications. Otherwise, performance gains would not be commensurate with the potential of switching to the new material, given the cost. This is not the same for larger radar applications such as ground and ship based systems to the same extent. Current GaN antenna applications (like what SAAB has proposed on the Gripen) at best introduce a more efficient material which would provide linear growth in power and also reliability but really does not address the hard part which needs to be done in order to extract the potential of the new material.
@ brar SAABs Global eye with GaN AESA can supposedly detect stealth fighter aircraft ..whats your opinion ? is that a realistic scenario to detect stealth fighters at stand off range ?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

The Global-Eye is an Airborne Early Warning aircraft and much like any other AEW it would be able to detect stealth aircraft. All radars can detect stealth aircraft - it is always a question of when, at what distance, and passing along that information in order to develop a fire-control-solution before the stealth aircraft does what it is there to do and returns. It is this effect of Low-Observability on the targeting loop that makes the design feature attractive and why every nation capable of fielding or developing advanced systems is looking at designs, techniques, materials and processes that decrease RCS and no one is really doing the opposite research i.e. how to increase RCS ;).

The L-Band AESA radars on the E-7, and the Phalcon should perform better than the Global Eye given they are at a lower band but then again those would not help much in targeting because ultimately you have to get a fighter close and make sure the organic radar and ultimately the missile seeker has to keep the aircraft in its tracks.

My reference was to X band FCRs for fighters and GaN application. Higher frequency sensors generate a lot of heat, and require a lot of power and cooling compared to surveillance sensors. For example, the 300 km surveillance radar using GaN - Girraffe 4A -, uses about 60-80 kW of power while an X band FCR with similar performance (MEADS FCR) requires more than 200 kW of power. Holding range constant lower frequency sensors are even more efficient. This, along with other reasons, is why long-range surveillance radars are in the VHF-L-band trade space with S bad now becoming increasingly a good trade to make because of growth in GaA and GaN AESA radars and components..
Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 364
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Eric Leiderman »

Over the next decade, crystal gazing, (which is a very ambiguous science?)


As and when stealth aircraft start populating major air forces. BVR missiles will be developed that use multiple sensors for short range close in and kill loop. Infra-red, optical and radar and possibly newer sensors will all communicate with the on board AI which will be data linked. With miniaturization the way it is going a BVR missile will effectively be a one way UAV. The AWAC lower frequency radars will data link with these BVR missiles and guide them within their kill sphere using data links.
To an extent meteor BVR is very much there and as net centric war fare evolves so will missiles using the same tech.
However 4.5 gen aircraft used in air dominance and other modes will slowly be reserve aircraft. As they will not be useful in the initial phases of the war, will come in play as enemy’s systems degrade.

An analogy which is comparable is the dumb bomb v/s smart bomb v/s air/ground missiles. At the moment the costing makes the dumb bomb proliferate, however the ratios will slowly tilt the other way as the cost differences decrease.

by then our AMCA will hopefully be in squadron service and we will have our own dedicated network reaching the platoon level and encompass all 3 services fighting as a single unit.
:D :D :D 8) 8) 8)
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by kit »

brar_w wrote:The Global-Eye is an Airborne Early Warning aircraft and much like any other AEW it would be able to detect stealth aircraft. All radars can detect stealth aircraft - it is always a question of when, at what distance, and passing along that information in order to develop a fire-control-solution before the stealth aircraft does what it is there to do and returns. It is this effect of Low-Observability on the targeting loop that makes the design feature attractive and why every nation capable of fielding or developing advanced systems is looking at designs, techniques, materials and processes that decrease RCS and no one is really doing the opposite research i.e. how to increase RCS ;).

The L-Band AESA radars on the E-7, and the Phalcon should perform better than the Global Eye given they are at a lower band but then again those would not help much in targeting because ultimately you have to get a fighter close and make sure the organic radar and ultimately the missile seeker has to keep the aircraft in its tracks.

My reference was to X band FCRs for fighters and GaN application. Higher frequency sensors generate a lot of heat, and require a lot of power and cooling compared to surveillance sensors. For example, the 300 km surveillance radar using GaN - Girraffe 4A -, uses about 60-80 kW of power while an X band FCR with similar performance (MEADS FCR) requires more than 200 kW of power. Holding range constant lower frequency sensors are even more efficient. This, along with other reasons, is why long-range surveillance radars are in the VHF-L-band trade space with S bad now becoming increasingly a good trade to make because of growth in GaA and GaN AESA radars and components..
Thank you, clear explanation as always!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

The meteor is an optimized weapon for 4th and 4+ generation aircraft allowing them stand-off ranges and therefore better offensive capability against targets that allow that (long-range targeting). It is not optimized for a 5th or 6th generation aircraft or for internal carriage given the design trade with the inlet (not allowing tight packing for example). Its seeker and data link concepts are again an evolutionary approach of the current and previous generation AAMs.
Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Haridas »

Eric Leiderman wrote:Over the next decade, crystal gazing, (which is a very ambiguous science?)


As and when stealth aircraft start populating major air forces. BVR missiles will be developed that use multiple sensors for short range close in and kill loop. Infra-red, optical and radar and possibly newer sensors will all communicate with the on board AI which will be data linked. With miniaturization the way it is going a BVR missile will effectively be a one way UAV. The AWAC lower frequency radars will data link with these BVR missiles and guide them within their kill sphere using data links.
To an extent meteor BVR is very much there and as net centric war fare evolves so will missiles using the same tech.
However 4.5 gen aircraft used in air dominance and other modes will slowly be reserve aircraft. As they will not be useful in the initial phases of the war, will come in play as enemy’s systems degrade.

An analogy which is comparable is the dumb bomb v/s smart bomb v/s air/ground missiles. At the moment the costing makes the dumb bomb proliferate, however the ratios will slowly tilt the other way as the cost differences decrease.

by then our AMCA will hopefully be in squadron service and we will have our own dedicated network reaching the platoon level and encompass all 3 services fighting as a single unit.
:D :D :D 8) 8) 8)
Single chip millimetre wave radar products will shortly be available for commercial use, and they are really cheap (~$20) , with 3x Tx and 4 concurrent Rx channels. Given 4mm wavelength it would easily fit into 10% nose radome surface of smallest A2A missile, so ,ultimately sensor fusion and its near optical feature sensing will make aircraft stealth impossible.

I am planning to use it for some interesting application.
Locked