AMCA News and Discussions

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 09 Feb 2011 21:45

If LCA called Tejas then what name will AMCA get ?

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 09 Feb 2011 22:23

kmc_chacko wrote:If LCA called Tejas then what name will AMCA get ?

Prabhas

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Feb 2011 22:26

Ojas, it shall be. Make it so!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/T ... 779279.JPG

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Feb 2011 08:03

Only one undercarriage...?

IT is a Medium air craft.

The FGFA should have plenty more in comparison.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 08:21

I have a feeling the nose section will change to something more JSFish in the TD1.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Feb 2011 08:33

I do not think it can change much. After all this is a smallish plane and changes should mean dramatic changes elsewhere. So, a boat like nose should change the bottom, which should impact the section around the intakes, which should impact the intakes. My feel is that the design should be influenced by the LCA. And the influence of the FGFA would be too close for modifications at this stage of the game.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 10 Feb 2011 09:01

Overall it looks like most like the Japanese 5th gen fighter model-Mitsubishi ATD-X(below)

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Feb 2011 12:43

My diagram was super crude onlee.

Now in view of the above CGIs, it seems that the weapons bay is below the air intakes, and the external weapons bay (which might house the IR guided short ranged AAMs) is behind the curve formed by the air intake channels as they curve inwards to meet the engines.

To be very honest, the earlier wind tunnel model was a little crude in the sense that the cockpit glass jutted out uncomfortably, and the rudder layout was conventional, and not a all moving rudder as on the PAK-FA and the J-20.
This one is much refined, but again not much can be said based on this model, except that this seems to be much more stealthier than the wind tunnel model we've seen

JMT

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Feb 2011 13:35

Again very crude diagrams based on the air intakes and weapons bay above.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 10 Feb 2011 13:55

Gagan wrote:Again very crude diagrams based on the air intakes and weapons bay above.

Image is not visible...!

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Feb 2011 15:12

sumshyam wrote:
Gagan wrote:Again very crude diagrams based on the air intakes and weapons bay above.
]

Image is not visible...!

Yeah baby .. its a super duper stealth fighter .. has visual stealth as you can 'see'

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 10 Feb 2011 15:46

I like it.... it looks like it's meant to FLY and not just be invisible, unlike the F-35, which somehow seems to throw all aero out of the window in its quest for stealth. This draws more from the design philosophy of the PAK-FA.
On that note, any indication that the AMCA might use all-moveable fins etc like the PAK-FA? In general, does that seem the way forward?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 10 Feb 2011 16:06

Gagan wrote:Again very crude diagrams based on the air intakes and weapons bay above.

Great for a crude first try...

Look at your engine -- too short.. Engine needs to be longer.. I dont anticipate any S-curve in the vertical direction.. I think we will only have one S-curve in the horizontal plane.. If you consider that you might be able to make your engine longer & more realistic..

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 Feb 2011 17:39

Those fins seem rather small. wonder if they could mate a good TVCed engine if the fins can be removed for good. Like the original MCA. Just a thought.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 10 Feb 2011 19:18

lets shiver in our dhotis, all chinese aircraft are clearly superior
we have no hope, let us surrender now

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Feb 2011 19:37

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 19:39

can someone pls tag and bag the troll so we can get on with serious discussion.

the 15 min joke timeslot is long over.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 10 Feb 2011 19:49

wen wrote: Are you blind?

besides the upper rear ends (which looks F-15ish) of the aircrafts, they both looks almost IDENTICAL to a L-15

Basically, change the L-15's vertical tails to V-shape you get a AMCA or japanese stealth training aircraft

Firstly one should not throw stones at other house when your own is made of glass.

Secondly, since you are adamant that any plane using LERX will have copied it from the almighty L-15, i guess the Americans and Russians must have devised some sort of time traveling technique to come to future and copy L-15 and thus produce f-18 and mig 29 respectively. I wouldn't blame you though as probably this is exactly what you were spoon fed by the commies.

Moreover, most of the planes (specially fighters) will look similar to some other plane. Just that Chinese look same as other planes (often like those that were discontinued before development could finish)

arya · Post by **arya** » 10 Feb 2011 20:11

Roadmap revealed for Medium Combat Aircraft
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... craft.html
The MCA will be in flight trials by end of the decade, and it will be inducted by the middle of the next decade," says Subramanyam.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Feb 2011 20:48

With thanks to Rahul Devnath.
Notice the parallel lines in the design, intended to ensure that reflections are controllable

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 10 Feb 2011 20:53

From above link::

Subramanyam says, the MCA "does not clash" with the FGFA. He says the MCA will be comparable to the Lockheed Martin F-35, and the FGFA comparable to the F-22 Raptor.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Feb 2011 20:57

Guys, why are you feeding the troll??

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Feb 2011 20:58

My question to the gurus,
Why have that groove behind the spine, between the two engines?

Why not smoothen that area and put in a fuel tank or whatever there?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Feb 2011 21:20

arya wrote:Roadmap revealed for Medium Combat Aircraft
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... craft.html
The MCA will be in flight trials by end of the decade, and it will be inducted by the middle of the next decade," says Subramanyam.

Arre bhai, why so sad? Even FGFA will be inducted after 2020. And this is when PAK-FA is already flying while even AMCA's design is not yet frozen. If AMCA manages to be inducted by middle of next decade, it will be very impressive feat.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Feb 2011 21:22

Gagan,
Nice work. I think even ventral fins are edge alligned.

ranjithnath · Post by **ranjithnath** » 10 Feb 2011 21:28

from the last model the leading edge of the main wing tip looks sharper,the length of the lerx has been decreased as a result of which the leading edge of the main wing is pushed to the forward.Also the horizontal stablizer has gone a complete makeover(luks similar to that in raptor) resulting in a reduction in its surface area.all in all ,aesthetically a better aircraft in the eyes of a jingo!!

added later:also the nozzles seem to be closer than the last model.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Feb 2011 21:42

Gagan wrote:With thanks to Rahul Devnath.
Notice the parallel lines in the design, intended to ensure that reflections are controllable

As far I see this plane is perfectly edgematched. There are only
1. Right leading edge (right air intake, right main wing leading edge, elevator leading edge, right elevator inner trailing edge, vertical stabilizer leading ehttp://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=1027769dge)
2. Right trailing edges (main wing and elevator outside trailing edge and vertical stabilizer trailing edge)
3. Wingtip edges (main wing inside delta leading edge, main wing main tip, elevator wing tip and vertical stabilizer wing tip)
4,5,6. Ditto for left side.

So there are just 6 edges!! Compare this with the J-20

The elevators are neatly tucked behind the wing.

The vertical stabilizers are alligned with the underbelly(notice the allignment with intakes) in the vertical plane.

The bottom is flat and the wing and the upper fuselage is beautifully blended giving very low side RCS too.

I can't see why it is not more stealthy than the J-20 and as stealthy as the f-22 when it comes to body shaping.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 21:55

mashallah a pragmatic and useable design, unlike the tail less drawings we saw few years ago.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 22:01

same design rules as the raptor has been followed except the wingtips where raptor has one extra clipped edge.
[img]
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fi ... hem_01.jpg[/img]

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Feb 2011 22:04

Gagan wrote:My question to the gurus,
Why have that groove behind the spine, between the two engines?

Why not smoothen that area and put in a fuel tank or whatever there?

It is because of Whitcomb area rule. This decreases wave drag. Basically we want the cross sectional area of the plane to increase and decrease smoothly along the longitudinal axis.

So, they are trying to make the plane to taper down n cross sectional area as much as they can. This is not a big problem on the 4th gen planes as they don't have a huge box like body for internal weapons. But for 5th -gen planes it is critical. The F-22 has the same solution as you see on the AMCA.

The PAKFA body doesn't enclose the engine. But you can see how the area between the engine is tapered out using a sting shape.

Surprisingly I don't see mych attention paid to this in the J-20 design.

With its wing pushed so far back and the tapering of the body starting barely 2-3 mtrs from the end of the plane. Thhe are curve will not be very pretty at the back.

It will give them volume. But an agile plane, I am afraid not. I am predicting that the J-20 is 1.7-1.8 Mach plane. But it is beyong the topic here.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Feb 2011 22:09

most people claim small vertical tails are good for VLO. how then is the raptor able to claim VLO with those huge and tall tails (much larger than pakfa)

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Feb 2011 22:15

^^^ A all movable tail small tail would definitely make the Raptor more stealthy. Probably they didn't think about it while designing or didn't want to go through the extra complexity as the F-22 was already far ahead of its time. Just to give you an idea. Even the 5th gen planes from India/Russia/China coming out from 2020-2025 won't match the Raptor in terms of stealth.So you can see in 1990-2000 F-22 was 20-30 years ahead of the rest of the world.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Feb 2011 23:20

>>With its wing pushed so far back and the tapering of the body starting barely 2-3 mtrs from the end of the plane. Thhe are curve will not be very pretty at the back.

Its Ok. We may not be able judge it properly but there is tapering starting from the Canards. Of course it wont be a perfect Sears-Haack body at the back.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 10 Feb 2011 23:28

Singha wrote:same design rules as the raptor has been followed except the wingtips where raptor has one extra clipped edge.

Appears more like F15 to me (except intake)

As somebody already pointed out its neck is much like raptor.. but wings and location of horizontal stabilizers wrt wings is "more like" SE.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Feb 2011 23:31

From the model, one can see, its air intake is more like Pak-fa than F-22. Same way its nose is similar to Pak-fa than F-22.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Feb 2011 23:34

Kanson wrote:>>With its wing pushed so far back and the tapering of the body starting barely 2-3 mtrs from the end of the plane. Thhe are curve will not be very pretty at the back.

Its Ok. We may not be able judge it properly but there is tapering starting from the Canards. Of course it wont be a perfect Sears-Haack body at the back.

YEs the canards will help in the forward part and also in capturing a lower maxima of the curve. But the back, I am not too sure.

Chinese obviously know this. They have tried to mitigate it with the big actuator housings and the trailing thing next to the nozzles, but still ...

I believe their priority was not too make a A2A weapon. It seems like a A2G weapon with A2A capabilities, somewhat like the F-35. The AMCA seems more akin to PGFA/F-22, an A2A weapon with A2G capabilities.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Feb 2011 04:37

Boreas,

Check out Code One mag (from LM). It has the evolutionary path the F-22 took to get to where it is now. The AMCA seems to have some commonality with one of them and as someone has suggested it just may take on the chin.

However, the AMCA being much smaller than any of the planes out there (non 5th gen too), I am not too sure how many evolutions it can go through. For its size there must be just too few options. JMT.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 05:44

indranilroy wrote:Even the 5th gen planes from India/Russia/China coming out from 2020-2025 won't match the Raptor in terms of stealth.So you can see in 1990-2000 F-22 was 20-30 years ahead of the rest of the world.

The chief designer of PAK-FA claimed the stealth level will be equal to that of PAK-FA ( check the Air Internal write up I had posted ).

And one cannot say for sure AMCA cant exceed the LO level of FGFA/F-22 , advancement in materials ,structures and RAM might just make it possible to better the F-22.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Feb 2011 06:14

Austin wrote:
indranilroy wrote:Even the 5th gen planes from India/Russia/China coming out from 2020-2025 won't match the Raptor in terms of stealth.So you can see in 1990-2000 F-22 was 20-30 years ahead of the rest of the world.
The chief designer of PAK-FA claimed the stealth level will be equal to that of PAK-FA ( check the Air Internal write up I had posted ).

And one cannot say for sure AMCA cant exceed the LO level of FGFA/F-22 , advancement in materials ,structures and RAM might just make it possible to better the F-22.

He did mention being equal to that of the F-22 and about a third of the cost.

The issue of LO is relative too. For sure - as we type - I doubt anyone is even close to the engine signature of the F-22 and I have my doubts if they will close that particular gap. Russia is expected to build one in about 8-10 years. China .............. outside of wind tunnel data I very much doubt they have anything close to the F-22. Who else is on the 5th gen war path that I may have missed?

Besides, there are other techs that have to catch up. Someone mentioned networks. Who is even close today? AESA?

By the time the Chinese come out with a missile for a fleet the US should have something else that will challenge them. Not to mention that the Chinese have ticked off japan and perhaps even Aussies (which is a surprise to me).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 06:53

NRao wrote:Who is even close today? AESA?

The NIIP chief designer in a recent interviews claims the new AESA under test for PAK-FA with more than 1500 T/W module will out match F-22 AESA ( he mentions its based on evaluation of new AESA Transmission Power and Reception Noise ) will post the scan copy of the interview next week.

More info includes AESA will be fitted on 3rd prototype of PAK-FA.