AMCA News and Discussions

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 07 Feb 2017 22:55

As per some news reports AMCA would have empty weight of 9 tons and internal fuel of 4 tons. If that is true then empty weight is too ambitious and internal fuel too low. A reasonable target with two 115kn TVC engines should be 12-13 tons empty weight and 7-8 tons internal fuel.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 07 Feb 2017 23:29

Please share these incredible reports.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 07 Feb 2017 23:35

The design, flowdynamics was done on a CSIR-NAL "Flosolver Mk8" supercomputer that does 360 teraflops peak and a 304 teraflops sustained.

This report from 2015
http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2015/01 ... evise.html

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 07 Feb 2017 23:43

NRao wrote:Kartik,

I *think* that is an old drawing.

Check this out:

Now stand about in line with the intake AND about twice the width of the wing, away from the intake and from that point look down the trailing edge of the wing. In your picture one would need to be way out.

I think that picture with Parrikar is the latest among all the pictures (including in teh following two posts).

From the pictures I have seen and done the drawing work is what I base my opinion (and it is just that) about the wing being closer to the YF-23 than the F-22.

My feel is that since the AMCA has TVC, they have designed the wing for "speed" and in case of a fist fight rely on the TVC to dance. Again, just my guess. But, based on the picture I am fairly to very confident that teh wing would be more "diamond shaped" than that of a F-22.

NRao, that model is the same as what was displayed at AI-2015. I seriously doubt that it is the latest iteration of the AMCA prototype 3B-09. The images that I posted are likely to be very close to the final iteration of the AMCA that will be shown at AI-2017. I'd be surprised if we saw any big changes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Feb 2017 00:36

Kartik

Yeah, AI-2017 makes sense.

BTW, how can I get in touch with you?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2017 01:15

NRao wrote:Kartik

Yeah, AI-2017 makes sense.

BTW, how can I get in touch with you?

I tried sending you a private message but the board didn't let me. Could you send me a message and I'll reply to it?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 08 Feb 2017 01:26

The tail / vertical stabilizer design of the 3B-08 is different from the model above.
The trailing edge of the main wing has undergone changes, and is no longer a straight surface, it has now two bends on it

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Feb 2017 02:41

Kartik,

I think only teh admins/moderators can send msgs on this board. Let me circle back

Gagan,

I am not too sure, but those models were for diff reasons is my understanding and perhaps some work was done made in parallel. I am not even sure that all of them made it through a wind tunnel in India or they tested the RCS for each of them.

But, as interested as I am in such details, AI-17 is right around the corner and I would love to see a good, stable, model. With proper (360) photographs.

Along with the HTT-40, C-Hawk, etc, good times. Sell a few to other nations and great times.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2017 02:45

One thing I noticed on the AMCA design 3B-09 which I felt was a bit off, was the size of the cockpit canopy. It seems to be very wide when viewed front on or top down. A bit like that on the STOVL F-35, which has a different canopy design than the F-35A. Whereas on the F-22, the cockpit is a bit elevated, and narrower when viewed front on or top down. On the PAK-FA, while the cockpit is not raised and seem

Now, I may need some more education on this, a canopy with a large glass surface permits radar waves to enter the cockpit and reflect off the cockpit insides, so doesn't it go against stealth requirements? Even with canopy surface treatment, shouldn't the goal be to minimize the glass canopy size while allowing for good visibility? And manufacturing such a large single piece canopy won't be easy either, keeping in mind bird strike requirements.

I hope this doesn't get some posters riled up about eyeballing a design and questioning something about it.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2017 02:56

here's an interesting paper on bird strike testing and design on the F-35A and F-35B

Birdstrike Impact studies on F-35

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 08 Feb 2017 03:00

kartik, pls google Indium-Tin-Oxide coating for glass canopies.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2017 03:14

I am aware of the coating and its use in reducing cockpit reflections, but still, shouldn't the glass surface area be reduced?

See the KF-X design, in most other respects, it seems very similar to the AMCA layout. Except for the cockpit, which is narrower and mounted higher than on the AMCA, where it is almost flush with the fuselage.

KF-X evolution with C-103iA supposedly being the later iteration.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 08 Feb 2017 04:37

Kartik, its a F35 style canopy where the pilot sits lower in the fuselage and still has good view (except back). The F-22 even has a canopy on a perch, not a full bubble style one, but still. My biggest hope is they have the aerodynamics and propulsion worked out

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Feb 2017 04:57

Kartik,

Nothing has been decided WRT the KF-X, except

, that LM will provide a boat load of F-35 based techs. One of the reasons why SK bought into the F-35.

So, I would not go about comparing these machines.

I think the situation will force India to innovate. IMHO, even the reduced visas are a good thing in the longer run for India.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 08 Feb 2017 05:03

The problem with a narrow cockpit is that because of the diamond shape of the front fuselage, the pilot's look down ability takes a hit.
Either mount the cockpit high, or make the cockpit wider
This is not such a problem in a non-stealth design, where the cockpit glass is bulbous and juts out further than the front fuselage.

Compare of this with the F-35 and F-22 above:

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2017 05:10

NRao, we aren't comparing anything but the latest available designs from the internet.

But, South Korea did begin full-scale development of the KF-X at the beginning of 2016 (as per AW&ST). Intended empty weight is 11 tons (24,000 lbs)

Heroux-Devtek of Canada will work with South Korea’s Hanwha to develop landing gear for the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) KF-X fighter. Since Hanwha has little experience in this area, Heroux-Devtek can be expected to supply the bulk of the technology.

Work on the program has begun, Heroux-Devtek says, adding that engineering, testing and qualification will be done at its facilities at Runcorn, UK, and Saint-Hubert, Quebec.

Heroux-Devtek has not developed landing gear for a combat aircraft of the size of the twin-engine KF-X, which is intended to have an empty weight of about 11 metric tons (24,000 lb.), but it did develop the undercarriage of the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The company has also worked on landing gear for transport aircraft and helicopters.

Its role in KF-X development will last for several years, the company says. Volume production of the fighter is due to begin in 2023 against a requirement for 120 for South Korea and 80 for Indonesia, also a program partner.

and

SYDNEY—South Korea contracted Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) on Dec. 28 to develop the KF-X fighter from 2016-26, with deliveries due to begin 2026. The contract appears to launch full-scale development of the KF-X—a two-engine fighter about the size of the Eurofighter Typhoon—with assistance from Indonesia. But it is unclear whether KAI can make much progress in 2016, since the defense ministry has secured very modest funding for the coming 12 months.

Development will last 10 years and six months, according to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the defense ministry’s purchasing office.

A meeting to kick-off the project is due to be held in January, the Korea Economic Daily says, adding that the first production aircraft is due to be delivered by September 2026. Production should reach 40 by 2028, with a further 80 aircraft following in 2029-32.

but I, for one, am not a fan of the F-35 type "sunk into the fuselage"cockpit design, which I'm guessing was driven by the fat fuselage aft of the cockpit on the F-35B STOVL variant.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 08 Feb 2017 05:12

Gagan wrote:The problem with a narrow cockpit is that because of the diamond shape of the front fuselage, the pilot's look down ability takes a hit.
Either mount the cockpit high, or make the cockpit wider
This is not such a problem in a non-stealth design, where the cockpit glass is bulbous and juts out further than the front fuselage.

Compare of this with the F-35 and F-22 above:

Right, so the cockpit can be mounted higher, in order to keep it narrower. Perhaps that does mean that the side-on RCS is slightly greater than the more flatter profile of a cockpit sunk into the fuselage.

See the TAI TF-X concept

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Feb 2017 05:13

Gagan wrote:The problem with a narrow cockpit is that because of the diamond shape of the front fuselage, the pilot's look down ability takes a hit.
Either mount the cockpit high, or make the cockpit wider
This is not such a problem in a non-stealth design, where the cockpit glass is bulbous and juts out further than the front fuselage.

Compare of this with the F-35 and F-22 above:

Kartik wrote:but I, for one, am not a fan of the F-35 type "sunk into the fuselage"cockpit design, which I'm guessing was driven by the fat fuselage aft of the cockpit on the F-35B STOVL variant.

Better still provide 360 sensors and great data fusion. I think that was one of the mods on the FGFA. I cannot say how much shift there will be, but for sure all these type of thinking has been dropped. FGFA and AMCA, which Indians consider to be superior to the FGFA.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 08 Feb 2017 05:20

They have a "transparent" virtual cockpit on the F-35, europhiter if I remember correctly

The pilot can look at the floor and "see through" to the earth, because images are generated to his visor

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 08 Feb 2017 05:51

Gagan wrote:They have a "transparent" virtual cockpit on the F-35, europhiter if I remember correctly

On the F-35, not on the Typhoon.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Feb 2017 15:53

GOI sets up panel to review stealth fighter requirements.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Feb 2017 11:42

Very F-35ish looking AMCA at this Aero India 2017.

From Livefist's twitter page

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Feb 2017 13:38

Looks F22-ish from front.

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/831408205100118016

Here is video on AMCA from AI. Veri TFTA looking stand and aweaome video.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Feb 2017 00:22

This is very very interesting. I have never seen this configuration before. This is an iteration beyond 3B-09. The vertical stabilizers have been modified. Most likely, the aerodynamics won there.

Here are some other pics from Saurav Jha.

Internal structural layout of 3B-09

RCS studies based on 3B-08

The model of the AMCA at the LSWT is that of 3B-01 (the original AMCA model), whereas the HSWT model is of the 3B-09 config

The cockpit layout hasn't changed much

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 15 Feb 2017 00:43

So its a late change, and a pretty drastic one when one considers the earlier vertical stabs layout versus the new F-35ish ones..The cockpit layout still remains the same though..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Feb 2017 01:41

the earlier one looked far better. i objects, i objects.

but hey, as long as it meets and beats ASQR

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Feb 2017 01:42

kartik, even the cockpit layout has been replicated at a basic level wit that wide angle frame in the hawk-i, prolly ssourced from either israel or samtel

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Feb 2017 01:44

on a serious note, i hope they put a bigger nose on the fighter and lengthen it some.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 15 Feb 2017 03:55

3B-09 config was the most pleasing to my eye as well.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 15 Feb 2017 03:58

Any specifications? Fuel? Payload? I hope they don't go medium compact.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Feb 2017 04:03

Indranil wrote:3B-09 config was the most pleasing to my eye as well.

are they final or are they still revising?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 15 Feb 2017 04:16

Do we get the impression that they are close to commencing fabrication?

Secondly, doesn't it make sense to start building a prototype to validate many of the other technologies involved.

And any word on the engine?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Feb 2017 05:38

Those twin tails are fugly...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Feb 2017 06:37

Only design team that I know of that proposed a single vertical tail low observable configuration for a fifth generation fighter failed to make the cut and the company was subsequently acquired.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 15 Feb 2017 08:43

Indranil wrote:

Does it look like the AESA panel in yellow is pointed upwards there?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 15 Feb 2017 08:49

brar_w wrote:Only design team that I know of that proposed a single vertical tail low observable configuration for a fifth generation fighter failed to make the cut and the company was subsequently acquired.

Should have been more clear - I have no problem against twin tails on 5 Gen platforms, but feel the ones in the models above are fugly, thats all. The ones on the F-22 and T-50 are fine, especially the latter - real looker that one!. These are like fat rectangles, similar to the JSF, one ugly plane that.

But then this is just jingo whine

no more

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 15 Feb 2017 10:31

PratikDas wrote:
Indranil wrote:
Does it look like the AESA panel in yellow is pointed upwards there?

I always thought they have a mechanical articulation system to move AESA panel up-down. If you want it in A-G mode move it down, for interception mode, pitched up etc. This would increase angular range in azimuthal plane.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 15 Feb 2017 11:04

JTull wrote:Do we get the impression that they are close to commencing fabrication?

Secondly, doesn't it make sense to start building a prototype to validate many of the other technologies involved.

And any word on the engine?

What about the FBL, what about FCS changes required, what about the radar, what about the naval variant being designed as part of the first iteration? Folks heading to Aero India with access to ADA team should ask.

kit · Post by **kit** » 15 Feb 2017 11:32

Cain Marko wrote:Those twin tails are fugly...

depends on what angle you are looking boss

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 15 Feb 2017 11:43

So many iterations of amca means design team is hard at work. It also means they are no way near freezing the configuration.