AMCA News and Discussions

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Feb 2011 06:55

Wen, I am answering you in the China thread.

Between I can see that your feathers are quite ruffled with AMCA

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Feb 2011 06:57

Austin sahab,

I was pointing out that the F-22 was there at 1995 where PAKFA will be at 2020 (may be or may not be in certain aspects, only time will say). So it is 25 years ahead of the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong in giving credit where it is due.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Feb 2011 07:06

Dear Brodhel Wen,
Finally we have a chinese who can write in engliss.
But be careful you've made a few grammatical errors already, you don't want to end up in the le education camp now now.
Also why are you talking about gothic? Shouldn't you be talking about ming this, peng that, song this? After all you guys don't follow the imperialists?

That large gliding surface is an interesting bit of engineering on the J-20, it will help the plane to glide for a while after the engine conks out every 20 hours.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Feb 2011 07:23

Austin wrote:
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.

That I understand. What about all other aspects? I doubt they are close.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Feb 2011 07:45

indranilroy wrote:
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 ...

Two protrusions extending behind the engine might help, I guess.

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.

Your assertion could be true. If you see the IAF trend, Gnat was intially A2A later modified to have A2G. Similarly LCA was primarily meant for the air interceptor role but converted to multi role. Su-30 is an A2A platform. Same way Pak-Fa is more about A2A. So AMCA too evolve in that fashion. In short, in achieving multi role, it is from A2A -> A2G.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 07:47

indranilroy wrote:Austin sahab,

I was pointing out that the F-22 was there at 1995 where PAKFA will be at 2020 (may be or may not be in certain aspects, only time will say). So it is 25 years ahead of the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong in giving credit where it is due.

Well yes I do agree that we need to give credit where its due but F-22 is not a good example , i think a good example would be B-2 far far ahead of its time and it is more stealthy compared to F-22 and most important its LO stays across meter to cm band. { i think most of the 5th gen fighter F-22,PAK-FA,JSF,AMCA and J-20 will be vulnerable to meter band , the OTH *may* detect B-2 as Aussies JORN claimed they did }

IMHO the F-22 aspect is a more or less a failed project where it did not deliver on its promise and when the expensive fighter did manage to enter sq service , it couldnt fly more than 1 hour for the next 30 plus hours it spends on ground. The JSF in many ways is better program and better aircraft then F-22.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 08:22

NRao wrote:That I understand. What about all other aspects? I doubt they are close.

We do not really know how good the other side is and how close the ruskies are in other aspects , the real information will be classified on either side , so lets not sweat over it and enjoy the PR war.

abhishek-nayak · Post by **abhishek-nayak** » 11 Feb 2011 09:03

Why is the Chinese troll allowed in BR forum?

manum · Post by **manum** » 11 Feb 2011 09:08

because we have a secret wish of screwing em...but question is in whole process who effed whom...

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 11 Feb 2011 12:15

The shift towards MCA being more air - air oriented is a little perplexing... I thought FGFA would be the air dominance fighter and MCA would be a striker.

The new design seems to be better in LO than previous one; only worried about ADA's ability to implement the same within time and HAL's ability to manufacture the same within tolerances. Let us hope for the best. IAF should accept the plane even if does not tick all boxes in ASR initially and allow the design to mature.

Also India appears to be alone in its decision to go for two pilots in its 5th Gen aircrafts. Whether it is the correct path, only time will tell.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 11 Feb 2011 12:40

^^ To me as well, but perhaps the IAF sees the AMCA as its future LCA... the small, cheaper, 'numbers' fighter, paralleling the F-16 in today's USAF. It looks as if they basically want two multi-role fighters, one high-end, one low-end.
The two pilots thing isn't unreasonable, I guess... it probably reflects a reluctance to completely rely on sensor fusion to lower the load on a pilot. And maybe sometimes it's just good to have someone else to talk to! It might be a less numerically efficient path (IIRC, one of the gurus had said WSOs are generally senior pilots), as the WSOs could then be used as pilots in their own right, without having to train more, but if it's more effective in a firefight, so much the better. Rather have two pilots coming home in one plane than two down in two planes.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 11 Feb 2011 12:43

Also, the IAF appears to want ~50 PAK-FAs, so maybe they're happy with single-pilot A2A-only jets. Who knows if they'll also look at a single-seat AMCA or an actual future LCA?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 13:44

the troll wen was posting with the email ID [email protected] which is the domain address of imperial college london.
assuming that's actually his email ID and not a stolen one, it just goes on to show that education is no hindrance to behaving like a moron.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Feb 2011 14:32

And also that studying in the UK does not gurantee good knowledge of english.

What was that phrase again?
Jo Peaking main ga**u woh UK main bhi ...

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 11 Feb 2011 15:00

okay...might be a newbie poonch...still will ask here...
I feel AMCA is somewhat anorexic/thin at the tail end,maybe lack of spacing between engines or whatever....so anyone could tell me that if it is widened how will it affect stealth airframe aerodynamics etc...??
TIA

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Feb 2011 15:27

he's sitting in Xin-Dong Military District 5 HQ building 27b, floor 3, cubicle 256
he is hijacking the email id i would say

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 11 Feb 2011 15:40

manish.rastogi wrote:okay...might be a newbie poonch...still will ask here...
I feel AMCA is somewhat anorexic/thin at the tail end,maybe lack of spacing between engines or whatever....so anyone could tell me that if it is widened how will it affect stealth airframe aerodynamics etc...??
TIA

You think so? Looks all right to me.

Maybe it looks that way to you because AMCA has s-shaped air ducts in horizontal plane to hide to engine's compressor blades.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 16:03

manish, check this on how tail end anorexia affects aerodynamics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule

as for RCS concerns, there's a simple way to get a very rudimentary idea.
get a torchlight, its beam is your radar wave. get a handheld mirror, think of it as a surface of an aircraft. when you get a reflection back on or around the torchlight you are getting a 'radar return' from the aircraft. in any VLO design one of the basic objective is to turn the reflected radar waves away the source, in this case your torch.
now think carefully what you mean by widened etc and how it would affect its radar return. remember that radars can be ground based ones as well as airborne. don't forget the aerodynamic aspect as well.

_______________
what initial did I drop ji ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 16:35

do check PM.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 11 Feb 2011 17:28

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

Notice the difference in horizontal stabilizers

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 11 Feb 2011 18:01

Is it just me, or does Aroor's rendering not actually look very much like the model?? Why would he spend time on something like this?

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 11 Feb 2011 18:09

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 11 Feb 2011 18:11

If that is the model....with a flat nozzle..it would just be सोने पे सुहागा!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 18:12

IMU (assumptions), those tails and rudder (on raptor /pakfa) are pure composite panels, with very little metal in them. So the radar waves just passes through. Am I right? What is the permeability of composite panels ADA has achieved? I guess it is classified info.. but any guru thoughts?

Frontal RCS by deflection (except the radome), and all aspect radar absorption would be super duper!

And I don't understand why flat nozzles are needed for IR reduction? There are others ways [why not peripheral h2o ejections to reduce IR? any reduction in thrust?].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tubul ... hanger.png

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Feb 2011 18:30

how much h20 you planning on carrying? and how much temp drop does a little bit of water achieve?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 18:37

Any heat exchangers/dehumidifiers/condensation technique along with some of the inlet air sent out for cooling? If we can achieve about 30% reduction, then we are safe from IR seekers for that much distance? Just thinking out loud onlee.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 11 Feb 2011 19:04

Shiv Aroor gets it drawn by a Graphics Artist.

The AMCA drawing is not accurate. The vertical stabilizer (rudders) and the Elevators are wrongly drawn.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 19:10

Venkarl wrote:

image doesn't appear. from some pvt channel ?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 11 Feb 2011 19:21

Self-deleted and re-posted later.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 11 Feb 2011 19:25

Rahul M wrote:the troll wen was posting with the email ID [email protected] which is the domain address of imperial college london.
assuming that's actually his email ID and not a stolen one, it just goes on to show that education is no hindrance to behaving like a moron.

If this is his own email id then we should report him to Scotland Yard immediately , IMO. He is exactly the kind of guy who will indulge in industrial espionage.Infact sometime back he was justifying industrial espionage on this forum.The evidence is there on previous pages.Once he is reported there is a fair chance that Scotland yard will monitor him in some way.

Guys what's your opinion regarding reporting him?Should I go ahead and send an email to Scotland Yard or any other UK agency which looks into such matters?

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 11 Feb 2011 19:46

Not very good spies who go around public forums and advocate industrial espionage - right?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Feb 2011 19:51

guys, this is still the AMCA thread. kindly keep it that way.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 11 Feb 2011 20:15

Pardon me mods for relocating my original post. The subsequent discussion on troll ruined the flow we were about to get into regarding AMCA. Apologies.
--------------

SaiK wrote: There are others ways [why not peripheral h2o ejections to reduce IR? any reduction in thrust?].

If there is h2o injection into the exhaust jet, it should actually increase the thrust NOT reduce,as per my guess. Water when converted to steam occupies 550 times the volume as a droplet. This would lead to violent expansion that should only increase the thrust besides cooling the jet.

But this positive effect on thrust should only apply for mixing h2o upto a certain proportion only. Increasing its content too much might reduce thrust due to overcooling(and contraction) of expanded gases in the jet. Probably for the amount of h2o that we could carry on a jet we don't reach that stage OR it happens much after the exhaust is out of the jet.

The h2o would have to be De-ionized type so as to not choke the pores of the spray with dissolved salts that normal water contains.

JMT

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Feb 2011 21:41

^it is a pleasure to read that idea actually is a positive thought. nice.

going FDAEC, we should be able to control the injection only at the time needed against MAWS signal., while the on board h20 generator + ion filter could be generating it.

again, if we can defeat by IR jammer or a retractable pod that jams IR/emits radiations, to act as decoy say 20 feet away could be a simpler solution.

both options would work wonders in self protection arena.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 12 Feb 2011 12:57

The tapering that indranil was mentioning is evident in this side view of AMCA model.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 12 Feb 2011 14:43

the AMCA shows full planform alignment.

expect serrated edges for alignment as well.

that artist's impression is obviously not accurate.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Feb 2011 18:49

So, pakfa fgfa has the OLS right in front. Would AMCA house the FLIR/IRST inside the canopy?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Feb 2011 21:46

I dunno if HAL has decided where to place the OLS.
Perhaps BRF can come up with some ideas that they might find worthy enough.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 12 Feb 2011 21:48

The F-22 raptor had a concept of having the OLS in front of the cockpit glass, but it was blended into the shape of the cockpit bulge, and perfectly streamlined, and not a ball jutting out.

The US eventually decided to not include this in the final product.

I think that concept needs to be looked into since that seems logical.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Feb 2011 06:14

Gagan wrote:The F-22 raptor had a concept of having the OLS in front of the cockpit glass, but it was blended into the shape of the cockpit bulge, and perfectly streamlined, and not a ball jutting out.

The US eventually decided to not include this in the final product.

I think that concept needs to be looked into since that seems logical.

F/A-18 International Roadmap Platform

Rafale Front-Sector Optronics (FSO)

F-35 EO DAS