AMCA News and Discussions

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2011 04:35

: ).

OK. It is a little "fatter", granted. (I cut-paste the two on to a page.) True, the distance between the engines are more pronounced.

On "pilot visibility" - it is a "6th" gen AC. So, what is your complain?

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 04:43

indranilroy wrote:It is a waste of cycles on discussing this fanboy art ... All I will say is that it won't fly as well as it looks .... and pilot visibility, well the lesser said the better it is

you have a good sense of humour. just by looking at the artist impression, you derived it can't fly. hain ji?

ofcourse, I didn't mean that it will fly. No artistic impress flies unless practically modified into a practicle bird. That's what happened with Pak-Fa too. Its artistic impression never flied.

Pilot visibility doesn't look that bad actually, cockpit is quite stuffed, elevated with glass panel slotted enough for visibility.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 04:47

NRao wrote: OK. It is a little "fatter", granted. (I cut-paste the two on to a page.) True, the distance between the engines are more pronounced.

Sir you have been for long. I am sure you know that it changes A LOT of things.

NRao wrote:On "pilot visibility" - it is a "6th" gen AC. So, what is your complain?

Point! I give up

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 23 Jun 2011 05:07

Come on people. Its just an artist's imagination. Moreover, its not even an artistic impression of AMCA. I have seen thousands of such futuristic arts. The DDM just found a cool looking image from a google search and pasted it in the article. I don't see why this image even warrants a discussion.

Added Later: Look at these 2 fighters.
http://images.wikia.com/tom-clancys-haw ... orback.jpg
http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn24 ... -51-43.jpg

Cool, but completely fictional and from a video game. There are thousands of such images floating around on internet.So, its a waste of your time if you take them seriously and start discussing them.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 05:28

raajneesh wrote:
indranilroy wrote:It is a waste of cycles on discussing this fanboy art ... All I will say is that it won't fly as well as it looks .... and pilot visibility, well the lesser said the better it is
you have a good sense of humour. just by looking at the artist impression, you derived it can't fly. hain ji?

It is not very difficult to say that. You don't even need to know aerodynamics to understand that. Just use simple physics of lever arms and you will see it.

raajneesh wrote: ofcourse, I didn't mean that it will fly. No artistic impress flies unless practically modified into a practicle bird. That's what happened with Pak-Fa too. Its artistic impression never flied.

No point discussing then.

raajneesh wrote: Pilot visibility doesn't look that bad actually, cockpit is quite stuffed, elevated with glass panel slotted enough for visibility.

All the best with landing that on an aircraft-carrier.

P.S. I am done discussing this artwork

.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 05:38

^^ duh. discussing an artistic impression of AMCA is causing so much pain to some people. I simply don't understand why. If the impression were of F-22, I am sure people would be jumping to join in discussion and hallucinating over it.

also, there is not much news coming out on AMCA so in meanwhile, allow us small mujahids to have some fun with impressions atleast. can't we have that much?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 23 Jun 2011 05:58

raajneesh wrote:^^ duh. discussing an artistic impression of AMCA is causing so much pain to some people. I simply don't understand why. If the impression were of F-22, I am sure people would be jumping to join in discussion and hallucinating over it.

also, there is not much news coming out on AMCA so in meanwhile, allow us small mujahids to have some fun with impressions atleast. can't we have that much?

Again, this is "not" an impression of AMCA. Its just a random digital art.

indranilroy wrote:
P.S. I am done discussing this artwork .

A wise decision which I will follow myself.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 06:27

Raajneesh, it's is not about heartburn or fanboyism (to F-22) ... I don't want to be rude, but it appears to me that you need a little more reading about aerodynamics ... you wouldn't have discussed this otherwise.

If you could answer a few very basic questions, we could discuss this (in some other thread)
1. Give me one reason for a nose as bloated as that? It is horrible for wave drag, brings CG forward and increases lift induced drag which are both hugely detrimental for high G turns. I will help you in your discussion, if this fuselage generates lift, then we can shorten the wingspan and lower the aspect ratio. This will help in the role rate. But then the artist doesn't capture this. And this is one of the rudimentary considerations of a design.
2. What is the use of such pointed inlet lips? It is a hazard with no apparent use.
3. Making it faceted doesn't make it more stealthy. It will make good TFTA pictures. If you want the side profile to be stealthy, the top body and wing should be as flat as possible (read about evolution of Rafale, or F-22, or even Carlo Kopp assessment of the J-20s wing-body-blend)
4. Forget about stealth, you could read the aerodynamics of the wing body join ... start with our very own LCA Tejas.

These are very basic question without even going into the basics.

Read up a little and you would know that the model shown in AI-11 is much much much better than this drawing

.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 06:39

@Indranil ji, technicalities don't apply to artist impressions. Even F-22, Pak-Fa's impressions were full of aerodynamic mistakes. If you look at early impressions of F-22, you will laugh of how unreal it looked. But does it mean, one can't be fan of it or appreciate the concept?

My only point was, the AMCA impression above is one of the best I have seen so far on Internet and is closest possible to the concept of AMCA. So I liked it. Hope I don't get halaal-ed for saying this now.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 06:44

you would be sad to know that it is NOT an artist impression of the AMCA!!!!

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 06:50

^^^ ok, in that case, you will have to throw us party if real AMCA turns out to be that. Ab naa mat kehnaa

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Jun 2011 07:07

^^^ I would be VERY SAD if the real AMCA turns out to be like that. you shall have your party though

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Jun 2011 09:18

Guys,the AMCA has now been revealed to be our 6th-gen aircraft,to come in the next decade after the FGFA.It will take at least 10 years to develop.There is a lot of exotic technology that needs to be perfected.The Japanese future 6th-gen stealth fighter programme could be examined for a comparison where that aircraft is intended to carry directed energy weapons (to be devloped in the interim) and operate along with UCAVs.The Koreans will have their own future stealth aircraft to follow the one that wins the 3 bird contest (F-15+++,EF and JSF) now underway.After that,the Koreans will only build/develop unmanned aircraft.Therefore,there is ahuge amount of work required before the capability parameters of the aircraft are established,and in the long devlopment time,many new systems might arrive complicating the design even further? I think that we could start listing and debating what capabilities/tech a 6th-gen bird should possess before even go to a 3-D model debate.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 23 Jun 2011 11:27

AMCA 6 Gen is just internet rumour. It will be 5th gen as planned . some phirangi help on radars and sensors. directed energy weapons is also rumor. It would be better ro focus on development of stealth airframe ad radar absorbing material rather than skipping generations. And focus on individual subcomponents like radars , sensors etc. advantage being they can be used for upgrades of other aircrafts besides being exported. We do now have experience of making aesa radar for drdo aewacs. so i am optimistic that we can achieve reasonable self reliance in the elec warfare department.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 11:41

gakakkad wrote:advantage being they can be used for upgrades of other aircrafts besides being exported. We do now have experience of making aesa radar for drdo aewacs. so i am optimistic that we can achieve reasonable self reliance in the elec warfare department.

we are incapable of fulfilling our own needs and importing over-expensive MRCA and you are talking about exports. oh well, Viru paaje(from sholay) won't mind it..

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 23 Jun 2011 11:56

raajneesh wrote:
gakakkad wrote:advantage being they can be used for upgrades of other aircrafts besides being exported. We do now have experience of making aesa radar for drdo aewacs. so i am optimistic that we can achieve reasonable self reliance in the elec warfare department.
we are incapable of fulfilling our own needs and importing over-expensive MRCA and you are talking about exports. oh well, Viru paaje(from sholay) won't mind it..

DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD CONTINUE remaining incapable. There will be a big market in African and vietnam like countries for our products. For instant the radar that we developed for awacs. We could sell it to african countries. Besides govt is open for private sector participants these days. In 2020 we ll have far more confidence.

raajneesh · Post by **raajneesh** » 23 Jun 2011 12:31

^^ godspeed to that spirit.. I bet our first exporter will be a private firm.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 23 Jun 2011 13:50

We have already exported. For big ticket exports brahmos seems promising. But even crap items can be exported. We have been sold some crap by the west in the past.So we can sell crap too. Most of Africa is still susceptible to kickbacks .And they surely need electronics upgrades for their migs. If china can sell those bandars (which is the silliest plane in the modern era) to zimbawe ,pakiland and some other tinpot little countries we can sell LCA which is 4.5 gen to countries like vietnam and congo rebels. If only govt of India would support the companies . If chinese could have hacked into lockheed so could we. We have got far better IT infra and manpower then them . Would have made amca easier to build .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jun 2011 14:28

Rakesh wrote:A test flight of 2017 of the AMCA may not be achievable when the project has just started.

might not be that difficult. we did in 8 years for LCA (1993-2001) when we had very little overall experience, no CLAW developing experience, lost 2 years to post pokhran events and the project was so underfunded that they had to shift subsystems from airframe to airframe. assuming AMCA starts officially by 2012, roll-out by 2014 and test flight 3 years after that doesn't seem too far-fetched.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Jun 2011 15:38

er, what engine will it use in 2014? if its not the same weight , form factor wouldnt it need a huge redesign later.

kaveri-snecma is unlikely to deliver a tested and certified product before 2018 assuming work starts next year, so thats not an option.

M88-4 is in the works for UAE (and perhaps India if we go that route), so M88-3 is one option

a more powerful option is GE-414 whatever the Tejas mk2 will use

all depends on the requirements freeze...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Jun 2011 15:57

F414 or whatever engine powers the selected MRCA.

sooraj · Post by **sooraj** » 25 Jun 2011 16:03

SaiK wrote:I missed this fantastic artist work here earlier - old article:

http://defencenews.in/defence-news-inte ... new&id=246

I really like the rear stealthy looks and cruise mode intakes, but I don't understand that artists thoughts on the front dark mattered lerx?

that image is actually a chinese stealth plane (artistic), u can check these 2 links

http://amazing-photography-blogz.blogsp ... hters.html
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=8662

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Jun 2011 18:53

thanks sooraj.. now it would not cross mach2.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 30 Jun 2011 02:05

From Livefist ---> Another artist depiction of the AMCA...the air intakes, the cockpit and the nose looks awfully close to the F-22 Raptor!

http://twitpic.com/3ykjd2

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 30 Jun 2011 02:39

yup.. AMCA must stay close to raptor design. why reinvent the wheel for data in terms of look & feel. May be ADA should look at designs from Northrop Grumman and Boeing as well from their 6th gen concepts.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx

Suresh_Shyam · Post by **Suresh_Shyam** » 04 Jul 2011 16:41

Still we don't have efficient Lab infrasturture for Advance Technology. For Example, Measure the RCS from Different angle. Even ADA has not tested LCA(LSP6 with Low RCS). It's will be very challenging task for ADA for reducing the RCS for AMCA.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 04 Jul 2011 17:15

Suresh_Shyam wrote:Still we don't have efficient Lab infrasturture for Advance Technology. For Example, Measure the RCS from Different angle. Even ADA has not tested LCA(LSP6 with Low RCS). It's will be very challenging task for ADA for reducing the RCS for AMCA.

Us SDRES have no lab vab. V have no technology also . LCA was made in a cow shed. And rcs was tested by boucing cricket balls from different angle. But AMCA will have 0 (jeero) RCS . gUESS WHY? It is made up of air only . (air the best radar absorbent material) .Waat to do. us sdres are like this onlee.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jul 2011 18:48

sure... even the romulans envy us.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 04 Jul 2011 20:02

gakakkad wrote:
Suresh_Shyam wrote:Still we don't have efficient Lab infrasturture for Advance Technology. For Example, Measure the RCS from Different angle. Even ADA has not tested LCA(LSP6 with Low RCS). It's will be very challenging task for ADA for reducing the RCS for AMCA.
Us SDRES have no lab vab. V have no technology also . LCA was made in a cow shed. And rcs was tested by boucing cricket balls from different angle. But AMCA will have 0 (jeero) RCS . gUESS WHY? It is made up of air only . (air the best radar absorbent material) .Waat to do. us sdres are like this onlee.

You are a cruel man gakakkadji.

Suresh_Shyam · Post by **Suresh_Shyam** » 05 Jul 2011 09:55

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jul 2011 08:08

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QjR9RGarjwA/T ... 8%2529.jpg
can some body answer why it is non-stealth mode for maritime?

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 22 Jul 2011 08:32

SaiK wrote:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QjR9RGarjwA/T ... 8%2529.jpg
can some body answer why it is non-stealth mode for maritime?

Maybe what they mean is that Anti-Ship missiles cannot be internally carried. Therefore stealth would be compromised, hence non stealth mode. That should provide us some idea about the size of the internal bay.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 Jul 2011 08:33

SaiK wrote:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QjR9RGarjwA/T ... 8%2529.jpg
can some body answer why it is non-stealth mode for maritime?

They may be planning to sling some ASMs under the wings given that the ASMs may not necessarily fit the internal weapons bay ergo non stealth maritime strike....

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jul 2011 09:32

But we could have the ASM under the wings stealth designed? like the japanese XASM-? or a DRDO developed one?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jul 2011 09:39

yes to a certain extent they can be stealth shaped and coated with RAM paints, but nothing beats having a internal bay. due to size issues I dont think ASM/LACM can be carried in the new gen of stealthy "containers" meant to hung under wings - those would work for AAM/ARM onlee.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jul 2011 09:51

Then we need a berry berry goooood Kaveri++, to fly super sonic skimming the sea, and deliver the ASMs at real low level flights?.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 22 Jul 2011 10:05

To carry LACMS in internal bays you need something of the size of a B-2 bomber! Fighter sized planes can't carry them internally unless they can be assembled from flat panels internally in flight!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jul 2011 10:11

How about, if we could design an aerodynamic canister like conformal under the wings, released, breaks up, and then fires.. then a/c can retain stealth?

of course I am imagining.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 22 Jul 2011 10:39

SaiK wrote:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QjR9RGarjwA/T ... 8%2529.jpg
can some body answer why it is non-stealth mode for maritime?

JDAMs specifically mentioned.... why would you mention a JDAM and then Precision Guided Munitions...after all, a JDAM is a type of PGM. We do not use "Joint

Is it just me, or is there a slip up here or is it something more deeper?

disha · Post by **disha** » 22 Jul 2011 10:58

SaiK wrote:But we could have the ASM under the wings stealth designed? like the japanese XASM-? or a DRDO developed one?

How about Brahmos or Brahmos-like (Nirbhay) for Anti-Ship Maritime operations? Like a swarm of AMCAs taking out a CBG? It is a cool raw power high stakes game.

How about, if we could design an aerodynamic canister like conformal under the wings, released, breaks up, and then fires.. then a/c can retain stealth? of course I am imagining.

The moment anything is "released" the stealth mode is "off"ed briefly. Now imagine an air-launched anti-ship brahmos., why take the penalty and the complications of putting it in conformal silos or worse still, why restrict yourself to the available space in those "silos" and even worser, why complicate the whole release mechanism. If AMCA can have sustainable supercruise, it can do a lo-hi-lo mission and make any CBG equivalent standoff at least 1000 km away from the Indian Shores. With >300 Anti-ship cruise missiles, the standoff could be as high as 2500 km (or higher).

PS: And this is assuming that the maritime AMCAs are shorebased.