Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
VikramA
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 29 Aug 2018 15:41

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby VikramA » 13 Nov 2019 07:40

For a f-35 b with 6 ton fuel and single engine but a powerful one the CR is 935 km clean. For f-35 a,c with 8 ton fuel CR is 1200 km. So for AMCA with 6.5 ton and twin engine we might end up with 1000 km range. GE engines are supposed to be more fuel efficient than Russian one

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4891
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby chola » 13 Nov 2019 08:15

Indranil wrote:Bhai, Indranil is just an observer. Take what he says with a huge bag of salt 8)

By the way, what a great article by Saurav. Clean, with new information and without judgements. When I was growing up, parents used to ask kids to read the newspaper to learn the language and know what is happening. Today, I would try to keep my son away from the opinion moulding that happens in the name of journalism these days.

AMCA is being designed to IAF's requirement specification based on roles that they do today. So range and capability of the aircraft is tailored to that. The support for the iterative development of AMCA is so heartening to see. AMCA Mk1 will not have supercruise, but Mk2 will. This tells you what IAF is thinking.

Saurav has let a few cats out of the bag:
1. AMCA will have DSIs. Will MWF have it too?
2. Specfications of Ghatak. A 13 ton UAV is a serious deal.
3. Navy is asking ADA for a twin-engined fighter even before Naval AMCA.


Yes, I am encouraged by the very realistic expectations and planning. I'd like to hear our plans for the Mk2 engine. That 110kN engine is supposed to be an upgrade of the F414 with about 10% more thrust or something else?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9236
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby brar_w » 13 Nov 2019 09:26

VikramA wrote:For a f-35 b with 6 ton fuel and single engine but a powerful one the CR is 935 km clean. For f-35 a,c with 8 ton fuel CR is 1200 km. So for AMCA with 6.5 ton and twin engine we might end up with 1000 km range. GE engines are supposed to be more fuel efficient than Russian one


That’s not a very logical way of analyzing it as it does not account for design trades, mission profiles and variant specific constraints...better to focus on what the IAF demands and go from there. The end result may be better or worst than what you are comparing but it will be more realistic.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Indranil » 13 Nov 2019 10:05

Actually, it is clear that IAF is deeply onboard with the AMCA program and the AMCA design goals are kind of laying out IAF's vision of the plane.

It's primary role is air superiority. You can see that from the fineness ratio, targeted and TWR. They have traded payload and range to gain this performance.

But, I love the this idea of carrying fuel tanks in the weapons bay if required. Adds to mission flexibility. You can trade stealth with hang time and performance.

Raghunathgb
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Raghunathgb » 13 Nov 2019 10:38

Indranil wrote:
But, I love the this idea of carrying fuel tanks in the weapons bay if required. Adds to mission flexibility. You can trade stealth with hang time and performance.


Does f35 have this feature or is this unique to AMCA?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7533
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Prasad » 13 Nov 2019 11:29

Indranil wrote:Actually, it is clear that IAF is deeply onboard with the AMCA program and the AMCA design goals are kind of laying out IAF's vision of the plane.

It's primary role is air superiority. You can see that from the fineness ratio, targeted and TWR. They have traded payload and range to gain this performance.

But, I love the this idea of carrying fuel tanks in the weapons bay if required. Adds to mission flexibility. You can trade stealth with hang time and performance.

In a non-stealth configuration, you carry extra fuel in the IWB and only weapons in external hardpoints.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby sankum » 13 Nov 2019 11:42

From Sjha article
its next generation carrier-based fighter slated to be developed under the Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) programme.

I will hazard a guess that it is a iterative twin engine variant of Naval LCA mk2 with MTOW of 23 to 25T and also a variant is offerred to IAF for ground strike role.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4060
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby kit » 13 Nov 2019 14:01

When are we having the naming ceremony for all the fighter kids coming off the block ?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby JayS » 13 Nov 2019 17:30

Please do not start a naming contest now in this thread. AMCA has time for that. Go to HTT-40 thread instead. LOL

sankum wrote:From Sjha article
its next generation carrier-based fighter slated to be developed under the Twin-Engine Deck Based Fighter (TEDBF) programme.

I will hazard a guess that it is a iterative twin engine variant of Naval LCA mk2 with MTOW of 23 to 25T and also a variant is offerred to IAF for ground strike role.


Its a replacement to existing NLCA MK2. But lets take that discussion in NLCA thread.



New PSQR for AMCA expected soon from the Article. Given PAKFA is cancelled (and Sjha uses FGFA term for AMCA :D), its only logical to assume some of the earlier FGFA requirements would have been assimilated in this recent PSQR. I expect some more changes to the current AMCA config, beyond just addition of DSI.

If only we had no limitation of engine. We are getting screwed for not investing enough in engines in last 30yrs, when we had chance. Now we will be paying a much higher price.

Ideally, we should have had a 8T MTOW AMCA, 22T clean TOW, close to 8T internal fuel, 2T internal weapons load, close to 5-6T external load and 90/120kN engines. Even with a 75/110kN engine we would be restricted to 25-26T MTOW.

But lets not forget that the bottom-line is that the IAF is fully onboard and as long as IAF is happy with AMCA, we are OK.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Karan M » 13 Nov 2019 22:08

More important than the engine driven kinematics IMHO are the stealth characteristics and avionics, plus the aero of the bird itself. If it performs decently in its Mk1 form, I can see the IAF picking up 2 more squadrons to form a core to punch up against advanced air defenses and do counter air ops.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Indranil » 14 Nov 2019 01:54

The avionics will be top notch Karan. Don't worry about that. We have good suppliers for that.

Frankly I am not too worried about the 25 ton MTOW. Everything comes with a price. 30+ tonners cost more to keep in the air.Chinese aircrafts have to fly long distances to fight the US and US has to travel to long distances to fight the Chinese. For us, the Chinese and the Pakis are next door.

I was actually thinking of a stealthier version of MWF. 8)

1. Powered by 110 kN engine
2. DSI + canted fins
3. Retractable IFR probe and stealthier IRST housing.
4. Small internal weapons bay for 4 WVR A2A missiles only. This will come at the cost of internal fuel capacity. When stealth is not required, fuel tanks will be plugged into the weapons bay.

So MWF will only be used in stealth mode in point defense roles only. Will be very effective, I will tell you. Small, fast birds are not easy to fight.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3543
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby fanne » 14 Nov 2019 02:38

you want stealth to defend, given limited money and option, If I can make stealth, I would make it for offense (no wonder, F-117 and B-2 came years before F-22). What if TSPAF decides not to launch any offense against India (because they are perhaps busy just defending, or maybe we are too strong with just non stealthy planes that it is stupid of them to cross border), then we will have a plane which is like a dulah with no barat or dulhan.
If I have stealth, even say 20 planes, there would be too many TSP targets (including planes protecting them). A point defense stealth plane doesn't make sense (also because being point defense they are too small to carry any meaningful load in the inside bomb bay. That doesn't mean on LCA we should not try LO tech - maybe spectra kind of approach will help more, stealth through active cancellation.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Indranil » 14 Nov 2019 04:42

Spectra is overrated.

venkat_r
BRFite
Posts: 343
Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby venkat_r » 14 Nov 2019 09:55

Yes would like to think of that as MK3 version around 2032 to 2035 with the same 110 KN engine, easier to maintain and possibly having all the gadgets and tech from AMCA and also potentially an unmanned, it is a bit too far for now but definitely a possibility for having 5-6 squadrons to fill up the numbers.

As it will not be the first stealth plane, ok to have the single engine fighter to make up the numbers.

raghuk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 00:38

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby raghuk » 14 Nov 2019 19:12

Indranil wrote:Spectra is overrated.

+100

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Karan M » 14 Nov 2019 19:19

Its a high-band SPJ/ESM + MAWS/LWS tailored to the Rafale + weapons RCS. Not a magic bullet against all threats.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8090
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby nachiket » 15 Nov 2019 04:25

Karan M wrote:Its a high-band SPJ/ESM + MAWS/LWS tailored to the Rafale + weapons RCS. Not a magic bullet against all threats.

That is still far more self-protection capability than any other aircraft in IAF service at this point. Every other aircraft lacks one or more of those elements.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Karan M » 15 Nov 2019 05:04

For the IAF yes, but by worldwide standards, Spectra is just a standard suite albeit with some (possibly) nifty modes. There is nothing to indicate its some magic trick per se. But time will tell. The IAF would have classified briefings and its very plausible Spectra is particularly effective against the threats IAF will face.

The interesting part is it also has a towed decoy + low band jammer. As part of the ISEs. Again, the first is unique to it in the IAF.

The Su-30 has a similar SPJ + LB suite, but the SPJ has interface issues with the desi RWR.

The Su-30 upgrade should add a MAWS + desi SPJ to address the issue but a towed decoy, LWS and a SAP-14 equivalent/interface will still need to be there.

The Mirage 2000 will have the high-band ICMS Mk3, but its unsure whether it has the DDM MAWS.
The MiG-29s have the DARE developed Tarang Mk2 and the D-29 SPJ (high band), no MAWS, no TD.
The LCA has the Tarang Mk2 and a TBD SPJ podded for the Mk1 and likely an ELISRA one for the Mk1A to go along with the Israeli AESA.
The DARIN-2 Jaguars have the EL/L-8222 and the DARIN-3s will get the D-JAG system (still in prototyping).

We also operate some more EW kit but lets leave that aside.

The DARE DCMAWS can be mass deployed only once its pylon fit gets cleared for suitable (medium-large sized) platforms.

A towed decoy is also essential but IAF is yet to standardize on a single design.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Karan M » 15 Nov 2019 05:26

One thing is for sure, the 50 odd Mirage 2000s and the 36 odd Rafales will be heavily interoperable and will have a very high degree of cockpit automation making them ideal for strike and A2A both. Truly multirole. The main aim will be to re-qualify all the weapons we have qualified on the base Mirage 2000 H/TH on the upgrades first and foremost. The 36 Rafales A2S weapons package is yet to be detailed, apart from SCALP.

The Su-30s will also approach the same level of automation with large displays, post their upgrade and will likely play the role of the F-15E in the Israeli AF.

The weapons we are integrating on the Su-30s point to the same: SAAW (120km), NGARM (100km), SPICE-2000 (70km), Brahmos (300-450km), Astra (90+km), Nirbhay (planned), Gaurav/Gautam glide bombs (30/100km).....these confer huge flexibility above and beyond the existing Kh-29 L/T, KAB-500/1500 and the Kh-59ME, Kh-31 A/P missiles which are also in service.

Once we have the IAF ODL activated, I fully anticipate the Su-30s to act as long range mission controllers tasking strike packages &/or comprising the core of heavy duty strike packages. If we add the Russian weapons fit, i.e. new gen Kh-58s, Kh-31s, Kh-38s, Glonass bombs, RVV-BD... we are looking at a very dangerous force which can tear the heart out of the PAF today, double-quick.

The PAF in turn will likely induct PRC AESA, warts and all (they really have no other option) and the PL-15 LRAAMs as a counter. European radars are really not an option as they wont give them the integration with Chinese weapons, despite their superior performance and ECCM capability.

However, with all the above, the IAF will have breathing space to wait for the AMCA. Especially if it keeps inducting long range low-band, radars either AWACS or ground based to pick up very low RCS targets at range (beyond J-20).

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby sivab » 18 Nov 2019 11:48

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 101751.cms

How is the progress of the Light Combat Aircraft and AMCA projects?
DRDO Chief: An advanced version, the LCA MK II, is the next aero platform. LCA MK II configuration is frozen and qualitative requirements are finalised. It is our endeavor to develop the fifth-generation advanced multi-role combat aircraft (AMCA) as per the project schedule to meet the Air Force’s requirements. We should be in a position to roll out the first AMCA within five years of project approval. We are not comparing AMCA with other aircraft, but are trying to meet the specifications given to us by IAF.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby ashishvikas » 18 Dec 2019 20:39

Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA): Gen-5 fighter on track, plan to fly by 2025

“The AMCA’s first flight is targeted for 2024-25,” said Deodhare. “We plan to build five prototypes for a flight-testing programme that would take about four years. By 2028-29, we plan to begin series manufacture.

Deodhare said that while AMCA would be a 25-tonne fighter, it would have an “all-up-weight” (AUP) of just 20 tonnes in stealth mode, when it would carry just one-and-a-half tonnes of weaponry concealed in internal weapon bays. In “non-stealth mode”, another five tonnes of weaponry or fuel could be carried on external stations, under its wings.

The AMCA would be able to carry up to 6.5 tonnes of fuel in internal tanks. While its operating radius remains secret, a back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates it can easily strike targets 1,000 kilometres away and return to base.

In “non-stealth” mode, it can carry an additional 1,200-1,300 litres in its internal bays, with its weapons load mounted on external, under-wing stations, thus operating as a potent long-range bomber.


http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/12/ ... a.html?m=1

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2618
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Cybaru » 19 Dec 2019 00:35

ashishvikas wrote:The AMCA would be able to carry up to 6.5 tonnes of fuel in internal tanks. While its operating radius remains secret, a back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates it can easily strike targets 1,000 kilometres away and return to base.

In “non-stealth” mode, it can carry an additional 1,200-1,300 litres in its internal bays, with its weapons load mounted on external, under-wing stations, thus operating as a potent long-range bomber.
[/i]

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2019/12/ ... a.html?m=1


It is a good day indeed!!! Thank you for posting this!
let's hope they keep this number for TEDBF!

So roughly 80% of fuel as SU30MKI in non stealth mode all internal. If they plumb it for carrying external fuel tanks than it will probably carry 2500-3000 liters there as well, giving it very long range.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8224
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Indranil » 19 Dec 2019 05:12

Very nice interview!

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Manish_P » 19 Dec 2019 09:58

ashishvikas wrote:
In “non-stealth” mode, it can carry an additional 1,200-1,300 litres in its internal bays, with its weapons load mounted on external, under-wing stations, thus operating as a potent long-range bomber.


Question to the gurus - Is it not better instead to carry fuel externally, drop the external tanks on the way in (thus reducing your radar profile), bomb your target (with weapons in your internal bay) and return in clean config?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby vishvak » 19 Dec 2019 11:53

Dropping external tanks prolly gives up the stealth and radar signature, as it is stealth is also about suppressing detection and such not just aerodynamic design to reduce signature.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby srai » 19 Dec 2019 12:28

Manish_P wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:
In “non-stealth” mode, it can carry an additional 1,200-1,300 litres in its internal bays, with its weapons load mounted on external, under-wing stations, thus operating as a potent long-range bomber.


Question to the gurus - Is it not better instead to carry fuel externally, drop the external tanks on the way in (thus reducing your radar profile), bomb your target (with weapons in your internal bay) and return in clean config?

Pylons will still be there.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2432
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Manish_P » 19 Dec 2019 14:18

^ Won't they will be there for weapons as well ?

And then there are jettisonable pylons (i have no idea about the engineering challenges/compromises nor the cost-benefit)

My thinking was purely from point of view that close to (and inside) enemy territory the aircrafts will need to be as stealthy as possible. Ex-ACM Tipnis in his post-balakot interview had mentioned about our aircraft purposely doing dummy flight path maneuvers (consuming fuel) post take-off to make it look like it was routine exercises and then going low (to evade radar) before intruding into POK

Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby srai » 19 Dec 2019 17:42

^^^
Interesting. First time seeing pylons being jettisoned.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby JayS » 19 Dec 2019 17:51

Shukla ji's report mentions

However, this engine is not powerful enough for super-cruising in all configurations. “Each F-414 engine generates a maximum thrust of 98 KiloNewtons (KN), and in Indian climatic conditions that effectively reduces to 90 KN. We have calculated that an AMCA, with the configuration the IAF has specified, requires a thrust of about 220 KN (in Indian conditions) for super-cruising. That means we need twin engines, each generating 110 KN thrust in Indian conditions,” says Deodhare


Not sure if the text is all correct here. Assuming no errors, this means we need engines which have nominal thrust of 120+kN each for AMCA. I think there is a mistake here. Even the F414-EE is going to fall short of that number.

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby sankum » 19 Dec 2019 17:56

The AMCA will internal carry 1.5 T payload which is likely to be 2 *500 kg JDAM + 2*250 kg BVR AAM. The two 500 kg JDAM can be replaced by 2 500 kg fuel tanks of 40 cm by 40 cm by 3.8m of max 600 litre capacity. The AMCA will still be able to carry 2 BVR AAM along with internal total 1200 litre fuel tanks.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby tsarkar » 19 Dec 2019 18:34

srai wrote:^^^
Interesting. First time seeing pylons being jettisoned.

Non stealth fighters do that too to dogfight clean or increase range. However losing an expensive pylon containing "wet" plumbing is not recommended.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9236
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby brar_w » 19 Dec 2019 18:40

tsarkar wrote:
srai wrote:^^^
Interesting. First time seeing pylons being jettisoned.

Non stealth fighters do that too to dogfight clean or increase range. However losing an expensive pylon containing "wet" plumbing is not recommended.


F-22As have that in their kit and the F-35s EFTs are being designed to be jettisoned as well based on current reports from LM and their Israeli counterparts. It is a valuable tool to have when you have to penetrate deep into enemy air space and can use more combat range while relying on minimum support. It is not something done routinely..for example for DCA the F-22As fly and retain tanks unless combat ensues and they have to...For OCA they would probably not bother carrying them.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby tsarkar » 19 Dec 2019 18:54

JayS wrote:Shukla ji's report mentions

However, this engine is not powerful enough for super-cruising in all configurations. “Each F-414 engine generates a maximum thrust of 98 KiloNewtons (KN), and in Indian climatic conditions that effectively reduces to 90 KN. We have calculated that an AMCA, with the configuration the IAF has specified, requires a thrust of about 220 KN (in Indian conditions) for super-cruising. That means we need twin engines, each generating 110 KN thrust in Indian conditions,” says Deodhare


Not sure if the text is all correct here. Assuming no errors, this means we need engines which have nominal thrust of 120+kN each for AMCA. I think there is a mistake here. Even the F414-EE is going to fall short of that number.


I am very worried about this part. No fighter in the world meets its design specifications and design weight is always exceeded 90% of projects. So without the appropriate engine there will be performance deficiencies.

There is a better option - the GE F110 that starts at 125 kN and goes up to 144 kN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F110

It is also license assembled by South Korea and Turkey, so assembling at Koraput wont be a challenge.

The best part? Its offered as a part of the US F-21 proposal to India. Though I would gladly take the engine and leave the close to obsolete plane

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby tsarkar » 19 Dec 2019 19:49

All ADA prototypes are assembled at HAL AR&DC to the best of my knowledge. HAL AR&DC is also doing the Tejas Mk1A.

I have my doubts on the bandwidth of ADA & HAL to do 4 projects simultaneously - Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2/MWF, TEDBF & AMCA. No nation on earth is doing that many projects.

I have serious doubts on the manpower and infrastructure at both ADA and HAL AR&DC to do four projects within the timelines mentioned in the article.

I am parking HTT-40 and HJT-39 for the time being that is also managed by HAL AR&DC

Also, the AMCA with two 110kN engines is approaching Su-30 & F-15 category. So the best route is Tejas Mk1A -> MWF -> TEDBF -> AMCA

The Tejas Mk1A & Mk2/MWF is Mirage 2000/Gripen E/F category
TEDBF is Rafale/F-18 category
AMCA is F-15/Su-30 category

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 386
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby Bharadwaj » 19 Dec 2019 20:05

tsarkar wrote:
I am very worried about this part. No fighter in the world meets its design specifications and design weight is always exceeded 90% of projects. So without the appropriate engine there will be performance deficiencies.



I would be more optimistic about this aspect. ADA now has far greater experience with the sizing of parts thanks to the tejas development.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4041
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby nam » 19 Dec 2019 20:10

I have my doubts on the bandwidth of ADA & HAL to do 4 projects simultaneously - Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2/MWF, TEDBF & AMCA. No nation on earth is doing that many projects.


What would be the drawback if TEDBF be kept as a non-stealth version of AMCA?

Create with the same shape as AMCA and fill up the weapon bay with fuel tanks!

Fundamentally you are de-risking a future AMCA-N version...

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby sankum » 19 Dec 2019 20:23

I am expecting TEDBF to be non stealthy derivative of AMCA.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby srin » 19 Dec 2019 20:31

Well, I thought I'd understood supercruise (as "sustained flight without AB"), but when even the ADA chief talks about wet thrust without referring to the dry thrust :eek: , I think it means something else entirely.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby JayS » 19 Dec 2019 20:36

tsarkar wrote:
JayS wrote:Shukla ji's report mentions



Not sure if the text is all correct here. Assuming no errors, this means we need engines which have nominal thrust of 120+kN each for AMCA. I think there is a mistake here. Even the F414-EE is going to fall short of that number.


I am very worried about this part. No fighter in the world meets its design specifications and design weight is always exceeded 90% of projects. So without the appropriate engine there will be performance deficiencies.

There is a better option - the GE F110 that starts at 125 kN and goes up to 144 kN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F110

It is also license assembled by South Korea and Turkey, so assembling at Koraput wont be a challenge.

The best part? Its offered as a part of the US F-21 proposal to India. Though I would gladly take the engine and leave the close to obsolete plane


First we need ascertain if the said thing is accurate or not. I dont think it is, as of now.

Second, please don't just look at the Thrust value. If it was possible to make 5th Gen Fighter using F110, the Americans would have happily used that one itself instead of spending tens of billions of USD in development of F119. The Russians would have stopped at Al41F, without having to go for I-30. F110 is longer, much larger in diameter, and heavier than F414. Though its comparable in these parameter with F119, but what this means is the airframe needed to accomodate these two large engines could not be mere 12T empty weight. It would have to be much larger. And then F110 would be grossly inadequate for that large airframe. That airframe would never supercruise even in its dreams. It would be one hell of a short legged aircraft due to excessive fuel comsuption.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4553
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft: News & Discussion - 30 August 2019

Postby JayS » 19 Dec 2019 20:43

srin wrote:Well, I thought I'd understood supercruise (as "sustained flight without AB"), but when even the ADA chief talks about wet thrust without referring to the dry thrust :eek: , I think it means something else entirely.


"sustained supersonic flight without AB"

He probably was dumbing down the things for lay person. Or there was a transmission loss through Shukla ji, for all we know.

I have tried a lot but have never seen any number for dry thrust of F414 EE version. All always mention the wet thrust only. But you can get a rough estimate from there. For F414-INS6 the dry thrust must be ~60kN, while for F414-EPE it should be in the ballpark of 70kN. 75kN would be bonus.

As for the Kaveri 110kN version, the targeted thrust numbers are likely 75/110kN. Not the ideal configuration for a 5th Gen Fighter, but would do for now. Once this is achieved we can go for something similar to F119. Imagine Su30MKI with two such engines. :wink:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kapio and 46 guests