Design your own fighter

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Nov 2011 06:45

wouldn't shape largely drawn out based what we want from the a/c in the first place? how we are going to use it, roles, stealth needs, manned or unmanned, etc?

--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqi_5GRRYMY&noredirect=1
boeing's 6th gen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ2FN3A1 ... re=related
russian ones

Mikhail Pogosyan, the General Director of Russia's aircraft-building giant Sukhoi, stated that the sixth generation of the Russian combat aviation would be divided into eight different aircraft and concepts. These concepts can be presented in MAKS Aviasalon 2011 that will take place from August 16th, 2011 to August 21st in Zhukovsky, Moscow Region, Russia. Six concepts will be presented by Sukhoi Design Bureau OKB-51, one by Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau and one concept by State research centre Zhukovskiy Central Aero-hydrodynamic Institute. The eight different aircraft and concepts must have, plasma stealth capabilities, anti-stealth capabilities, directed energy weapons, cyber attack capabilities, integrated self-protection, electronic attack and sophisticated integrated air defense systems. Russian Sixth Generation jet fighter expected to enter service in the Russian Air Force in 2030-2050 timeframe.

Tumba · Post by **Tumba** » 12 Nov 2011 07:09

shiv wrote:Maybe we can learn something here? Lot's of new inputs.

Someone suggested "pure delta"
Someone else said "disc shaped aircraft"
Other choices would be swept wing and non swept wing deigns.

Clearly there is no perfect shape. If a perfect shape was discovered all aircraft would be made of that perfect shape as soon as people caught on to the fact.

So what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

Delta is the most suitable for Aerodynamics ... as proven by all aerodynamic studies(A Theoretically and Practically Proven Fact)

If I would ever be in a position of making a decision, I would make this plane Nuke Powered

I think you all know that Nuke Powered Submarines were result of feasibility study to built a Nuke Powered Bomber back in 50s ... But these Nuke Engines were so heavy that only a big Structure could have carried them at that point.

Now miniaturization has come to this level that we can fit a Nuclear Powered Engine in bombers like B-1 ... and for a fighter sized plane we can use the dangerous direct Nuke Powered Engine (Coz It will Vomit Radiations During Operation) which can be miniaturized to fit even on a Sukhoi Sized plane but that should be a UCAV.

And with all that a Stealthy Air frame with Air Frame acting as Sensors and T/R modules that will make this machine a Big AESA ,
the exhaust can be fitted on different angles of Delta making the Plane amazingly Agile ... Super Maneuverable

Now imagine this....

A Nuke Powered Stealth UCAV Patrolling continuously on Indo Tibet Border ... or can be made to patrol the whole damn world

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Nov 2011 07:15

nuke powered? how are you going to control that power? what will happen if it crashes? willing to accept the radiation effects?

Tumba · Post by **Tumba** » 12 Nov 2011 07:23

SaiK wrote:nuke powered? how are you going to control that power? what will happen if it crashes? willing to accept the radiation effects?

Wat you mean control the power.. Humans hav long back mastered this(CONTROL RODS) ....
Thr are already 100s of Nuke Powered Submarine/Ships in place and all can crash/Destroyed ...
about Radiation ... well even if a Fighter/Bomber sized Reactor crashes the effects will be negligible than a
Typical Nuke Reactor crash... coz the amount of power/heat we need is .01% wat a 500MW reactor produces ...
a risk well taken to defend your country ...

siddharth · Post by **siddharth** » 12 Nov 2011 07:24

With the Fukushima episode and Kudankulam still simmering I dont see a nuclear powered aircraft anytime soon.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Nov 2011 11:05

you still need the turbines. Perhaps you are not seeing the melting point either.

Tumba · Post by **Tumba** » 12 Nov 2011 11:31

SaiK wrote:you still need the turbines. Perhaps you are not seeing the melting point either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=rsCw0s0BJKY

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 12 Nov 2011 11:45

Rahul M wrote:vardhank, almost all fighters designed in 80's and later can be considered STOL. if Mk2 has levcons LCA would do even better.

coming to stall speed, there was a very interesting picture from 1989 air power demo at tilpat range. it featured 2 mirage 2000's flying with a quite slow flying prop driven aircraft (was it a HPT-32 ?)
you can guess the speed.

however it must be said that fixed wing jets are not going to be used against individual soldiers so that the need for a very slow aircraft is not there. for that kind of thing you are best off with aircraft like pucara, bronco or armed helicopters. frankly, I don't see us using prop powered attack aircraft.

Bala, it's not possible for me to calculate that without having access to info I will never have. I will guess between 1 and 2 hours depending on payload and flight altitude with 15-30 min time over target.

>> The Jingo Fighter would be a dedicated CAS bird with low speeds but heavy payloads.
realistically speaking, you are not going to see a dedicated attack aircraft anytime soon anywhere in the world.

>> The modified Canberra can be used for strategic bombing in the Tibet plateau and of course for bombing the hell out of our western neighbhour's strategic targets.

far too complex and costly with questionable gains. the MKI carries twice the equivalent bombload of two canberras and then some.

Re STOL - I didn't know this

Re the Jingo - I don't see why not, actually. I agree with Bala_Vignesh here, we have our own needs, why bother with international trends? Brazil saw a need for the Tucano/Super Tucano, and went ahead. We have a peculiar topography in the northeast, so why not make something that suits it?

Re the Canberra, again, why not? We don't have a utility aircraft of our own, which can be made in various configurations for various needs (AWACS, bombing, mid-air refuelling, etc). Buying the rights to the Canberra should not be an insurmountable task, and equipped with Kaveri or Adour engines, should give us a pretty reasonable platform for this sort of stuff. Yes, perhaps it won't have a massive payload, so you might not be able to use it as a regular bomber, but what about as a cruise missile platform, to vastly extend the range of the Brahmos and Nirbhay? Gives us a very good standoff strike option without having to resort to BM strikes.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Nov 2011 22:12

vardhank, if you read carefully I didn't say anything about blindly following international trends but trying to understand why those trends are there. the tucano is first and foremost a turboprop trainer, do not forget that !
remember my point about modifying existing design ?

AWACS, mid air refueling platform on the canberra ?

unless you are interested in looking up the airspace over your neighbour's kitchen garden and plan to refuel RC aircraft this doesn't make much sense I am afraid.

suryakiran · Post by **suryakiran** » 12 Nov 2011 23:57

An airship with helium as the main gas. Structured envelope with solar cells for energy and turbines for wind energy. Equipped with Phalcon, SAR. Assault version armed with 15 BrahMos and 35 Air to Air missiles. Remotely controlled from a central monitoring station.

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 13 Nov 2011 00:40

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2011 00:57

so, how are you going to use the nuclear power when the plane is in hangar? one can't just shut down a nuclear reaction per say.

it has to be a totally detachable LRU unit, once in hangar would needs to used as power generation purposes.

still the risk of accidents and nuclear radiations would make such a bomber usability to near zero or negative.

Usability is more important..

Tumba · Post by **Tumba** » 13 Nov 2011 01:52

SaiK wrote:so, how are you going to use the nuclear power when the plane is in hangar? one can't just shut down a nuclear reaction per say.

it has to be a totally detachable LRU unit, once in hangar would needs to used as power generation purposes.

still the risk of accidents and nuclear radiations would make such a bomber usability to near zero or negative.

Usability is more important..

The planes will only return when there will be fuel shortage AKA when Bomber/Fighter will run out of Uranium else what is the use of nuclear bomber/fighter ....
Why bother to take it inside hanger every day when it can fly for days ...
Usability is the main reason why there should be a Nuke powered plane ...it will give us much more usability than a normal bomber/fighter ...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Nov 2011 04:46

I shall leave alone on your quench. All the best.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 13 Nov 2011 05:16

shiv wrote:.. his pet idea of an RD-33 or F-414 engined Canberra. He says that a Canberra of this type will have excellent performance, can carry 3-4 Brahmos, .

RD-33 or F-414 would likely have to be fitted with governors to prevent them from blowing past the Canberra's design limits. They are capable of twice the thrust of the Canberra's Avon and would shake it apart if they went even a little past their minimum thrust. If the intention is to actually use that extra thrust, the plane would need to be completely redesigned structurally from the ground up, specially if were going to carry a large missile. Wonder what he thought about this.

Actually the Canberra makes a good Brahmos carrier as-is because all it needs to do is carry it as far as possible and launch. Like even the Sukhoi, it would be a dead duck if caught without fighter cover because it would be flying like a sick duck. But looking at scale, it will carry just one like the Su30mki. For a volley, we need something bigger:

Nick_S · Post by **Nick_S** » 13 Nov 2011 06:17

Re-engining Canberra, then strengthening it (rebuild) etc, then integrating new avionics and testing it with brahmos etc, will take a lot of time & resources. We are better off starting from scratch with a new design.

Say a medium sized subsonic twin engined aircraft with VLO characteristics and 5,000 km range. The engines could be very high bypass kaveris for improved SFC / range and reduced IR signature. An internal weapons bay to carry two Brahmos.

30~40 of such aircraft could meet our strategic bombing needs as well.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Nov 2011 03:34

I guess back in 1984 DRDO should have spun off an hf-24 test bed for demonstration of the FBW/glass cockpit and for armament testing. Of course there was a funds crunch but we could have used the airframe design expertise. Hindsight is of course 20/20. Moving back to 2011 can this design be revived as an AMCA test bed ? Once the paper CAD drawings are digitised and analysed using whatever software, it can be used for internal weapons carriage and associated radar signature tests. IT could also serve as a test bed for the Kaveri engines. Of course the fuselage might have to be expanded for this. LCA being small and jampacked may not have enough space left for housing any kind of test equipment. Intention behind this is to save time in AMCA development by testing out individual technologies on a known airframe, given we might have some Maruts surviving in good conditions somewhere. The MAruts were also known for their good low speed performance while also being capable of 2.0 speeds implying the robustness of the airframe design as such . [disclaimer]i know nothing on aircrafts except that they fly[/disclaimer]

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Nov 2011 03:55

Folks is hoodwinking IFF systems already part of ECM/ECCM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Nov 2011 12:59

suryag wrote:I guess back in 1984 DRDO should have spun off an hf-24 test bed for demonstration of the FBW/glass cockpit and for armament testing. Of course there was a funds crunch but we could have used the airframe design expertise. Hindsight is of course 20/20. Moving back to 2011 can this design be revived as an AMCA test bed ? Once the paper CAD drawings are digitised and analysed using whatever software, it can be used for internal weapons carriage and associated radar signature tests. IT could also serve as a test bed for the Kaveri engines. Of course the fuselage might have to be expanded for this. LCA being small and jampacked may not have enough space left for housing any kind of test equipment. Intention behind this is to save time in AMCA development by testing out individual technologies on a known airframe, given we might have some Maruts surviving in good conditions somewhere. The MAruts were also known for their good low speed performance while also being capable of 2.0 speeds implying the robustness of the airframe design as such . [disclaimer]i know nothing on aircrafts except that they fly[/disclaimer]

There was a proposal for stuff on these lines (FBW testbed etc) by HAL but was not cleared by the babus who decided HAL was best served in just license assembling aircraft.

Folks is hoodwinking IFF systems already part of ECM/ECCM.

Yes. One of the most interesting systems deployed by the US in Vietnam (which we now know about, thanks to research by aviation enthusiasts) was an IFF spoofer. Of course, Russian IFF systems (and IFF systems generally) of that era were initially quite primitive, and spoofing todays encrypted systems with codes which change regularly, is not so easy.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 14 Nov 2011 13:15

Couple of things that might have been:

1) MiG-21s with RD-33s (tested and demoed) - better TWR, and range thanks to low SFC on RDs. Perhaps with increased internal fuel.

2) Mirage-2000s with AL-31FPs - better TWR, and range thanks again to above reasons. Probly would make it the most agile fighter around, and achieve supercruise. Stick an AESA, IRST, and ajdust the intakes if needed. Add conformal carriage for AAMs, leetle bit of shaping, extra RAM, and Kaboom - probly the best single engined fighter in the world

. Beef up undercarriage and landing gear, add arrestor hook, and stick 'em on future IN carriers.

3) Better than #2: Take LCA, hold corner of image, drag and make as big as Mirage 2000. Stick AL-31FP in the rear (make sure to get full TOT on Al-31 beforehand), increase internal fuel to ~ 4000kg, keep empty weight down to 7500-8000kg. INcrease payload to 7000kg. Insane TWR and wingloading plus lower RCS than 4gen birds make it uber air supremo. Add AESA, IRST etc in blockwise improvements, please wonlee bring 5gen birds to challenge Maha-Tejas.

CM.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Nov 2011 13:43

1+ ^

Israelis are good at this b@stardization stuff. They stuck a Phantom J79 turbojet in a bootleg Mirage V airframe and called it Kfir. Turned out to be very successful.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 14 Nov 2011 14:48

Mossad's liberal help should also be acknowledged in addition to the jugaadu Israeli engineers

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 14 Nov 2011 17:46

Rahul M wrote:vardhank, if you read carefully I didn't say anything about blindly following international trends but trying to understand why those trends are there. the tucano is first and foremost a turboprop trainer, do not forget that !
remember my point about modifying existing design ?

AWACS, mid air refueling platform on the canberra ?

unless you are interested in looking up the airspace over your neighbour's kitchen garden and plan to refuel RC aircraft this doesn't make much sense I am afraid.

No, I didn't say anything about blindly following trends - I don't believe we need to follow them at all, or even conventional 'logic.' Yes, it might be expensive (the Jingo), but if it works for our peculiar conditions, and works better than a modified version of an existing fighter, I'd say it's probably worth the trouble. In any case, that's the sort of argument that can go on ad infinitum, so no more on that.

Re the Canberra, that might have just been me talking out of my Musharraf. However, I still think a 'utility' platform is well worth investing in. Would the MTA work? Or is it better to just import?

Vivek_ahuja, Indranilroy, any more thoughts on the LCA-2?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Nov 2011 17:58

given the number of types we operate, it seems to be very inefficient utilization of resources to introduce yet another type with what seems to me marginally improved capabilities, when the same can be achieved with existing aircraft. the days of cheap CAS aircraft is over against an enemy who has decent air cover, against PLA for example you will need the full spectrum of capabilities offered by strike aircraft.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 Nov 2011 12:21

I would like to propose a design for a fighter/CAS aircraft. Please note the idea is for point defence and CAS. Hence the really long ranges of 1200-1500 kms are not required. Hence a fighter which can provide CAS at around 300 kms for 30 mins loiter is good. Also CAP at 100-150 km for 1 hr is what I am saying. What I am saying is to go back to design the size of GNAT. Small elegant, get the job done kind. Cheap to produce and run. Produce in numbers and beef up the back. There job is defensive air interception and CAS.

Long back when I read a book on fighter design, one of the thing that struck me was that the size requirement of the fighter is directly proportional to the radar dia it carries. Hence the bigger the radar, the bigger the nose, hence the bigger engine required to move it around. So thinking on those lines, if we create a fighter with a small nose. We do away with the radar and instead have a IRST in the nose. Modern IRST's have really good ranges. For example Pirate is claimed to have a range of 100km. However it's overall size is much smaller than comparitive radars. So a slightly bigger IRST than pirate in the nose of the craft would give good enough detection ranges.

So take a design similar to the size of GNAT, put in a IRST in the front, the nose wheel retracts behind the IRST and just before where the cockpit starts. Size intakes, Y duct. Single engine. Since the overall front of the aircraft is much less, and size is less, we need a much smaller engine. Maybe a single afterburning engine having 40kn dry & 60 kn wet thrust, something like Honeywell F-125 or M-88. Empty weight of 2-2.5 ton, internal fuel 1.5-2 tons. Two recessed tandem hard points in central line and two below engine intakes. Thus 4 long range AAM. Tne central hard points can be fitted with pylons so that two small bombs upto 250 kgs can be carried. Two hard points each on the wings capable of carrying 250 kgs bombs or rocket pods. Internal gun 23mm. Close coupled delta. The delta provides good fuel storage and space for retracting the main landing gears, just like the Mirage 2000. Thus when on air interception role, it has 4 long range AAM's and four short range AAMs. Intial target vector provided by AWACS or other long range ground based sensors or other fighters. It moves in closer, uses IRST for target location once it is much closer say 60-100 km. For CAS, it carries 4 250 kg bombs or 2 bombs + 2 rocket pods. It uses the IRST as a FLIR for target identification. Maybe fit a Laser target designation pod in one of the hard points below the intakes.

Because of their smaller overall size, they have natural stealth. Smaller foot print for better logistics in forward location. Very simple overall design for better turnaround time. No complicated systems in place. Have in good numbers, to take care of the home front. Cheap & easy to produce & maintain. Free's the airforce biggies for more sensational & glamourous work. Form composite squads of 2 biggy like Su-30MKI & paired with 4 of these for CAP. Suddenly you have 6 fighters in the air.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 10 Dec 2011 08:39

Kargil Air Operations Revisited (AVM Narendra Gupta in Sainik Samachar, Oct 15, 2000, fresh after Kargil)

There were many lessons. Also the need was felt for a slower, more manoeuverable plane like the Vampires and Harvards used in the valleys of J&K in earlier wars. Perhaps, the new Advanced Jet Trainer would meet this requirement

Don't know if this was posted earlier but it mirrors the comments made by Abhibhushan near the start of this thread. We should do more jugaad type projects. Don't know about 200 mph Harvard though.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Dec 2011 09:07

why not work with BAE to evolve the Hawk AJT to what we need. once the prototype is proven just manufacture more such hawks locally. a lot of local eqpt could be used. its a low risk and relatively cheap project if the IAF wants...but I think they will stick to Tejas mk1 as the minimum std.

which brings me to a radical thought - these are no different than a fastish helicopter gunship..similar payload but more speed, range and safety. so why cannot the IA have a fixed wing arm and get itself say 100 of these CAS birds in the army aviation corps ?

another option is the Su35 Frogfoot, updated with a better engine and new avionics and weapons like the saber, brimstone, pars, helina, laser guided rockets and so on...again IA should own it up.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 10 Dec 2011 13:57

Singhaji,
The IAF is having a $hiTfit with IA inducting Medium and attack helicopters, do you think they'll let it induct such aircrafts in IA??
Nonetheless, i completely agree with you that these kind of modified hawk or any CAS aircraft should be left with the IA for better organic training and coordination, not to mention ease of use.
JMO.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 10 Dec 2011 14:28

Bala & Singha sir,

I think IAF would have less problem if IA keeps its fixed wing plans limited to propellor driven aircrafts. Its probably the encroachment into the jet domain thats sends shivers down the IAF spine. A jet attack fighter with the IA would mean IA can theoretically start interdiction operations maybe 200-300 km behind enemy lines. Once it starts doing that it can start asking for smaller fighters to protect these interdicting fighters, thus slowly encroaching into the domain of the IAF. This is the fear of the IAF. However is IA stays limited to props, it would mean that the aircraft would not be used to anything beyond the immediate vicinity of battlefield. Thus relieving the IAF fears of scope increment and encroachment into its domain. Also the IAF could still maintain its scorn for the prop driven jocks of the IA.

Moreover a STOL prop plane can also take off from fields, flat plains, flat river valleys, just like they did during the WW2, thus can keep much closer to the battlefield and provide immediate support. Also shorter distance to fly to the battlefield would mean that it consumes less fuel commuting and can loiter more. Also having a small temp airfield 50-60 km from the actual battlelines can also be used by the IA helicopters, ferrying small supplies, casevac etc. The army would anyway be plying logistics to the battlelines, thus the same lines can be used for supporting the air field.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Dec 2011 17:13

well a super tucano type would have a rough time against the manpad/radar guided aa gun threat, not to speak of roving helicopters with aams. and their payload would be too limited...a helicopter gunship would do better things and mount more sensors.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 Dec 2011 21:53

In westside Pakiland do not need much range and in north most of our needs may be in Himalayan regions. So bmallickji's idea of small and low cost aircraft makes sense for a nation such two fronts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Dec 2011 22:10

Narayana Rao wrote:In westside Pakiland do not need much range and in north most of our needs may be in Himalayan regions. So bmallickji's idea of small and low cost aircraft makes sense for a nation such two fronts.

In fact the US had initially used single prop aircraft in Vietnam (Douglas Skyraider) and there was a proposal to bring back that type for Afganistan simply for the fact that they are economical on fuel and can loiter for a while over an area while fast jets are really going too fast to keep a visual on what's happening on the ground.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 10 Dec 2011 23:18

Singha wrote:well a super tucano type would have a rough time against the manpad/radar guided aa gun threat, not to speak of roving helicopters with aams. and their payload would be too limited...a helicopter gunship would do better things and mount more sensors.

Singha sir, for CAS support even a helicopter gunship would be threated by manpad/radar guided aa guns. If short range rockets are used for hitting the target in ground, then the helicopter as well as the fighter would be with in 500-1200 m of the target, hence pretty vulnerable to attack from ground. Also for the case of attack using ATGM's on flat plains, only standoff distance would provide the protection from ground based AA systems as well as Manpads. Of course helicopter do have the capability of popping up from behind hills, tree lines and launch standoff atgms. Thats definitely there forte. However for CAS such popping up may not provide enough time for proper distinguising between friendly and enemy forces. It would be better to be much nearer to the fight, maybe higher but definitely nearer.

A prop plane would definitely have better altitude to stay away from manpads as well have speed to provide a much smaller launch window. Please note I am not saying that armed helicopters are waste. Armed helicopter is better suited to hit enemy armor, before actual contact. Once contact is made, in the fog of war, air assets would have to need closer to differentiate between enemy and friends, hence the extra speed of a turbo prop.

Such aircrafts would provide good rough field capability, more loiter time, greater altitude for standoff attack, better speed for low level attack, dive capability for attack and better speed for transit. Such aircrafts, I believe feel out of the airforce's radar across the world because of not being glamourous enough and fast enough in a jet age.

I have seen countless video's of hurricanes, spitfires, stuka's, Me109 taking off from flat fields and plains. what that means that such aircrafts do not need special concrete runways, thus are invulnerable from run way damage. Such a thing is what's required for an airfield ( quite literally) which is acting as a forward base for CAS support. Even if the field is hit, all we need to do is a find another flat piece of land.

Something which can take off from rough fields. Carries a 20mm gun, two rocket pods and 4-6 small bombs or helina. Good loiter time, stol. Well we already have something that can be a base for making such a aircraft. The Rustom-1 UAV is based on the Rutan Long-EZ. Long-EZ has a range of over 3000 km, ( more than 14 hour flights have been demonstrated), 8000m cieling and speed of 290 kmph. It has a max take off weight of 600kg. Beef up the design. Increase speed to 400-500km. Range maybe reduced to 1000-1200 km, loiter to 1-3hr. Increase max takeoff weight. Let it carry a weapons load of 800-1200kg. Before any one jumps around, please note that Rustom-1 has a take off weight of 1800 kg, which is 3 times that of Long-EZ. So use the same design and beef it up further to a max take of weight of 2000-2500 kg.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 11 Dec 2011 11:38

Taking forward what I said earlier, I would like to propose a aircraft below.

Turboprop.
Max take off weight : 2000-5000kg
Range: 1000-2000km
Endurance: 2-4 hrs at a distance of 200-300 km.
Crew - 2
STOL, (If possible take off and landing within 220, basically if possible take off from our carriers)
Small internal bay, to carry 4-8 small bombs. 2-4 hard points on wing. Integral 20mm gun.
Top speed: 200-400 kms

The aircraft would have the following versions:
1. CAS
2. Basic Trainer
3. ASW version for the Navy. Hence the need if possible to take off from STOBAR carriers. Modify the internal bay to able to carry Air dropped sono-bouys. Basically something to take the place of Alize.
4. AEW - This might be a problem variant hence if possible then only else forget about it. If I recall rightly the Gannet ( which was similar to the Alize was also used as a AEW from carriers.)

Basically what I a suggesting is something like the good old Alize. Maybe single or double engine. Small bomb bay, good loiter. Maybe longer wing span for better STOL and Loiter capabilities. Decent speed. Rugged. Take inspiration from the Bush planes flying around the world.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 11 Dec 2011 12:10

If we are planning a turboprop, why not go the P38 way??? The airframe is already designed for the roles of fighter and CAS.. AEW and ASW version maybe derived from it..

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 11 Dec 2011 12:29

You mean P-38 Lightening??

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 11 Dec 2011 12:41

Yeah.. The P 38 lightening.. Its got all the capabilities that were mentioned in your post. And with a twin engine helps in safety aspect too for operations over sea...

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 11 Dec 2011 13:12

Yup. Agree with you Bala. Two engines, really good range, has lots of hard points.

Since its a really really old design, maybe we can buy the design straight away from Lockheed. Or else we can look for similar designs. Or design something on our own.

Get a design. Use a turboprop. Hell talk with Turbomeca and ask whether the Shakti which is a turboshaft can be modified into a turboprop. If so use that. Else get a decent turboprop.

And for heaven's sake, this is not something that is cutting edge. Hence should not take a lot of money to do. Ask the private players to work on this and let HAL/ADA/DRDO concentrate on the leading edge jet section. This would allow the private players to start building up their skills. Infact Mahindra can use its inhouse experience obtained by acquiring Gipps aerospace.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Dec 2011 13:34

Singha wrote:why not work with BAE to evolve the Hawk AJT to what we need. once the prototype is proven just manufacture more such hawks locally. a lot of local eqpt could be used. its a low risk and relatively cheap project if the IAF wants...

which brings me to a radical thought - these are no different than a fastish helicopter gunship..similar payload but more speed, range and safety. so why cannot the IA have a fixed wing arm and get itself say 100 of these CAS birds in the army aviation corps ?

limited payload, limited range, limited airframe capability regarding extra weight, zero space for future growth potential, no space for sensors. net net, not good for much beyond bush wars.

but I think they will stick to Tejas mk1 as the minimum std.

with good reason.

another option is the Su35 Frogfoot, updated with a better engine and new avionics and weapons like the saber, brimstone, pars, helina, laser guided rockets and so on...again IA should own it up.

you mean either su-25 or su-39.

again, not really a bird that can hold its own and fight out of a hairy situation if need be. that aside, it's a good aircraft but there's the problem of yet another additional type.

sorry guys, the days of prop powered strike aircraft is over, unless you want to use it against maoists. against anyone with a half decent AD force, it would be dead meat.

if you would absolutely have to have one, the aircraft you should look at is not P-38, which is ancient and would be enormously costly to produce using old techniques or to upgrade the procedures. that aircraft should be the OV-10 bronco. but keep in mind that neither USAF nor USMC used them for strike roles in desert storm in spite of extensive experience during vietnam. USAF didn't bring them at all fearing iraqi AD.

AEW and ASW version maybe derived from it

sorry boss, what are you smoking ? AEW and ASW from a single seat 10 t prop ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Dec 2011 13:52

Rahul M wrote: sorry boss, what are you smoking ? AEW and ASW from a single seat 10 t prop ?

Rahul there is a precedent < 7 tons. Not single seat though

OV-10 Bronco

Boeing has recently put together plans internally to build a modernized, improved version of the OV-10 Bronco, called the OV-10X,[4] to satisfy a possible Air Force requirement for a light attack plane.[5] According to Pentagon and industry officials, while the aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, the 21st century modernizations would include a computerized glass cockpit, intelligence sensors and smart-bomb-dropping capabilities. Boeing indicates that international interest in restarting production is growing, to compete with other light attack aircraft such as the T-6B Texan II, A-67 Dragon and EMB 314 Super Tucano.

On 3 February 2010, during the Singapore Air Show, Boeing announced that the international interest for the aircraft was such, that it would go on with its development even in the case it failed to win the USAF tender for 100 Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft.[6]