AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

abingdonboy said:
Weaker/stronger is all relative as these things cross commercial interests and into strategic relations

Since Modi came to power the shift has been clear and France and India have started to talk about the relationship in strategic terms

Rafale (IAF)
Rafale (IN)
Additional P-75

All point to this as they were done via GTG not the standard long winded open tender route. The only other country that has enjoyed such benefits with India in the past is Russia but largely (post S400) these deals have slowed between India and Russia which implies a strategic shift is taking place which the Indian side I guess hopes will see benefits both on the civil (nuclear) and defence side (engines and SSN tech)

I’ll throw in

SCA
AMCA FTB
NETRA MK.2
MMMA/LRMPA

All will be based on French (Airbus) platforms involving heavy OEM assistance

India seems to have made a choice and will expect reciprocal benefits, the 5th gen engine was always Safran’s to lose but GE/RR were kept in the fray as somewhat of a contingency but also to provide cover to avoid potential political fallout by only engaging 1 partner; similar to the MRCBF process. It never made sense the F18 was going to be picked but they couldn’t just sign the deal for the Rafale-M especially not after the uproar that was created after the IAF’s Rafale deal

@BON PLAN


+ as for the F414- it’ll be signed this year but apparently GE are demanding even more upfront $$$ and this is further cementing the fact the Americans cannot play the game with India
Click to expand...
I think we all have to improve the tie between India and France.
For exemple by purchasing (at least as a stop gap solution) indian SEAD missile for exemple (to fit on Rafale).
same about rocket artillery systems.

India is for us a perfect partner, once we don't take into account the huge bureaucraty....
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
Please specify your expected diff. b/w AMCA MK1 & 2.
Click to expand...
AMCA Mk1 with F414 engine
AMCA Mk2 with new 110kN engine

I guess that with the 110kN engine will not be certified for at least another 10-15 years. I imagine there may be a lot of changes to the Mk2 design.
 
Spitfire IX said:
AMCA Mk1 with F414 engine
AMCA Mk2 with new 110kN engine

I guess that with the 110kN engine will not be certified for at least another 10-15 years. I imagine there may be a lot of changes to the Mk2 design.
Click to expand...
Bcoz EU nations are proceeding well with their FCAS & GCAP, means with their engines too, so an engine produced in JV with any of them should progress rapidly.
With time, the materials, computers, tools, techniques improve, so the time should reduce.
 
BON PLAN said:
I think we all have to improve the tie between India and France.
For exemple by purchasing (at least as a stop gap solution) indian SEAD missile for exemple (to fit on Rafale).
same about rocket artillery systems.

India is for us a perfect partner, once we don't take into account the huge bureaucraty....
Click to expand...
If both sides see the opportunity in front of them there are almost no limits, I’ve said for a long long time that India and France are perfect strategic partners for each other and have more in common than differences strategically speaking

It would be a good idea for France to make the relationship more mutual but I’m not convinced it will especially how dependent it is on NATO interoperability

+ as for bureaucracy you’d be surprised how quickly things can move if they are moved up to PMO level, again it’s up to both sides to make the relationship strategic. The PMO ability to fund projects is only going to explode as time goes by
 
abingdonboy said:
If both sides see the opportunity in front of them there are almost no limits, I’ve said for a long long time that India and France are perfect strategic partners for each other and have more in common than differences strategically speaking

It would be a good idea for France to make the relationship more mutual but I’m not convinced it will especially how dependent it is on NATO interoperability

+ as for bureaucracy you’d be surprised how quickly things can move if they are moved up to PMO level, again it’s up to both sides to make the relationship strategic. The PMO ability to fund projects is only going to explode as time goes by
Click to expand...
NATO is not a problem. It is an asset : the integration of NATO weapons range is eased.
And all the special NATO goodies (I think L16) are removed when delivered to non NATO country.

We were able to deliver the first egyptian Rafale, taken on the line from french order, just by removing the deterrence mission black box and some softwares.
 
FalconSlayers said:

View: https://x.com/ANI/status/1911377458990817417
Click to expand...

He is right.
We all see some new birds buit fastly, but :
If you have to study, test and produce a new engine it takes at least 10 years.
If you have to study, test and serialy produce a weapon system with minimum capacity it takes at least 10 years, and 15 to have a mature one.
It is only the frame that is quite easy to produce.

Rafale A and EFA were built within 4 years, but all with existing egines, and no weapon system.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
So far we have seen multiple CADs & static models with slight differences.
Neither ADA nor the 3D artists release basic schematic diagrams, cross sections, configurations, etc. The ones available so far are low resolution & inadequate.

View attachment 27527

It is difficult to confirm how the inducted jet will look like & its capabilities.
So taking the most convincing CAD front view & superimposing the IWB dimension of 2.2m width & 0.75m depth, along with BVR-AAMs from TEDBF CAD, it seems 6x Astr-2 short-fin version with 178mm body diameter would fit in IWB easily with or w/o staggering.
SWB is also possible.
With 1.5 ton IWB capacity, 6x BVR-AAMs + 2 CCMs = 6x154 + 2x88 = 1,100 Kg, 1.1/(12+6.5+1.1)=5.6% of STOW.
Wet T/STOW ratio = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+6.5+1.1) = 1.02
With 50% fuel used & firing 4 BVR-AAMs, with 2 CCMs & 2 BVR-AAMs left, wet TWR = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / {12+3.25+(4x154 + 2x88)/1000} = 1.24

View attachment 27521
Click to expand...


AMCA width 36'6" / length 57'9" / empty weight 12 tons / Internal fuel 6.5 tons.
F-18E/F width 44'8" / length 60'1" / empty weight 14.5 tons / Internal fuel 6.7 tons.
After seeing skinny 4gen F-18 SH with same 2x F414 engines & enjoying versatility of high loadout including EW pods, i decided to push AMCA's design potential as per its dimensions.

5gen design brings AAMs very close inside IWB in staggered order. The fins of AAMs were clipped.
6gen focuses on more capacity of everything & AMCA is being pitched as 5.5gen, so capacity should be increased IMO.

Bcoz AAMs already don't have 100% PK (Probability of Kill) & DEW-CIWS or DECM (Directed Energy Counter Measure), so the next step is to pack more AAMs in same space.
NOTE- After shooting BVR-AAMs the tactic is not to merge for dogfight like in movies, videogames, but make U-turn & continue to stayout of enemy's AAM's NEZ till all BVR-AAMs are depleted.

The PL-15 might be 1st medium range AAM with folding fin.


1744793238406.webp


But with AMCA's 0.75m IWB depth, 135 degrees of folding is not required, just 45 degrees up/down would suffice. The launcher would punch out the AAMs straight, so the folded fins would be aerodynamically in line with separation trajectory, would take less time to unfold & start flying the AAM.
Astr AAM dia. is 178mm.
In the 2,200mm wide IWB, 2x4 or even 2x5 AAMs might fit tightly.
If the folding can be done within 180mm width then 5x180=900mm would be needed for 5 AAMs, leaving 200/6= 33mm gap b/w the AAMs & with IWB side walls.
A scaled notional diagram of 3/4/5 AAMs looks like following:

1744801085540.webp

With 10x BVR-AAMs + 4 CCMs = 10x154 + 4x88 = 1,892 Kg, 1.892/(12+6.5+1.892)=9.3% of STOW (earlier 1.1 tons was 5.6%).
Wet T/STOW ratio = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+6.5+1.892) = 0.98 (earlier 1.02)
With 50% fuel used & firing 4 BVR-AAMs, with 2 CCMs & 2 BVR-AAMs left, wet TWR = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+3.25+1.892) = 1.16 (earlier 1.24)

Now comparing this new potential with F-18 looks like following:

1744964477667.webp

It looks like may be AMCA airframe volume can be expanded some more.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
AMCA width 36'6" / length 57'9" / empty weight 12 tons / Internal fuel 6.5 tons.
F-18E/F width 44'8" / length 60'1" / empty weight 14.5 tons / Internal fuel 6.7 tons.
After seeing skinny 4gen F-18 SH with same 2x F414 engines & enjoying versatility of high loadout including EW pods, i decided to push AMCA's design potential as per its dimensions.

5gen design brings AAMs very close inside IWB in staggered order. The fins of AAMs were clipped.
6gen focuses on more capacity of everything & AMCA is being pitched as 5.5gen, so capacity should be increased IMO.

Bcoz AAMs already don't have 100% PK (Probability of Kill) & DEW-CIWS or DECM (Directed Energy Counter Measure), so the next step is to pack more AAMs in same space.
NOTE- After shooting BVR-AAMs the tactic is not to merge for dogfight like in movies, videogames, but make U-turn & continue to stayout of enemy's AAM's NEZ till all BVR-AAMs are depleted.

The PL-15 might be 1st medium range AAM with folding fin.


View attachment 30676


But with AMCA's 0.75m IWB depth, 135 degrees of folding is not required, just 45 degrees up/down would suffice. The launcher would punch out the AAMs straight, so the folded fins would be aerodynamically in line with separation trajectory, would take less time to unfold & start flying the AAM.
Astr AAM dia. is 178mm.
In the 2,200mm wide IWB, 2x4 or even 2x5 AAMs might fit tightly.
If the folding can be done within 180mm width then 5x180=900mm would be needed for 5 AAMs, leaving 200/6= 33mm gap b/w the AAMs & with IWB side walls.
A scaled notional diagram of 3/4/5 AAMs looks like following:

View attachment 30693

With 10x BVR-AAMs + 4 CCMs = 10x154 + 4x88 = 1,892 Kg, 1.892/(12+6.5+1.892)=9.3% of STOW (earlier 1.1 tons was 5.6%).
Wet T/STOW ratio = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+6.5+1.892) = 0.98 (earlier 1.02)
With 50% fuel used & firing 4 BVR-AAMs, with 2 CCMs & 2 BVR-AAMs left, wet TWR = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+3.25+1.892) = 1.16 (earlier 1.24)

Now comparing this new potential with F-18 looks like following:

View attachment 30860

It looks like may be AMCA airframe volume can be expanded some more.
Click to expand...
making the iwb bigger also compromises a lot with structural strength of the airframe It's basically a big cavity in the structure
need lots of external strengthing for that cavity which adds more weights and takes more space, plus changes the centre of weight of the jet, so you can't make a bigger iwb in the current amca by expanding it's volume, even if engines seem powerful enough, plus superhornet also has more higher aspect wings than amca( better lift) and also has leading edge extensions that also helps in lift, but also greatly helps in High AOA and allows it to still be a very manurable fighter even with realtively higher aspect wings compared to other fighter jets.


as for seeing super hornets high payload that you are talking about that inspired you to increase the iwb of amca, as you think it can handle more Internal payload with 2f414 engines
drdo did showed "beatmode" of amca with both external and internal payload in past, so it's pretty well known it can handle more payload than 4 bvr missiles in its iwb with 2f414 engines.
Engines are not a limit for its iwb payload.
Just like f35 also has beat mode, but internally cam only carry 4 missiles( 6 with side kick update)



For trying to make iwb of amca bigger we Gotta redesign from start and Need to make the entire plane bigger.
Better idea would be to add extra side bays with 1wvr missile each or also be able to carry 1 bvr missile each, similar to what Russians did with su57 side bays, which are add on modifications.



Though the idea of 45° folding wings of astr missile to fit 4 or even 5 missiles in amca's iwb looks good.
 
randombully said:
making the iwb bigger also compromises a lot with structural strength of the airframe It's basically a big cavity in the structure
need lots of external strengthing for that cavity which adds more weights and takes more space, plus changes the centre of weight of the jet, so you can't make a bigger iwb in the current amca by expanding it's volume, even if engines seem powerful enough, plus superhornet also has more higher aspect wings than amca( better lift) and also has leading edge extensions that also helps in lift, but also greatly helps in High AOA and allows it to still be a very manurable fighter even with realtively higher aspect wings compared to other fighter jets.
Click to expand...
randombully said:
For trying to make iwb of amca bigger we Gotta redesign from start and Need to make the entire plane bigger.
Better idea would be to add extra side bays with 1wvr missile each or also be able to carry 1 bvr missile each, similar to what Russians did with su57 side bays, which are add on modifications.
Though the idea of 45° folding wings of astr missile to fit 4 or even 5 missiles in amca's iwb looks good.
Click to expand...
In this diagram the IWB volume is same as official stats 2.2m X 4.2m X 0.75m. The pixels of AAMs have been scaled after calculation.
I've added SWB which i've been saying since beginning & showed in previous post too. The NG-CCM looks like AIM-132 ASRAAM with only rear set of small fins, so they can be staggered & 2 can be added in each SWB.
This is just a notional edit, but IWB is an old concept since F-102 Delta Dagger in 1950s. The IWB cavity is created by "humping" the fuselage. Rest our engineers can surely do the needful adjustments with a 70+ years old concept. AMCA won't be the 1st & last jet with IWB. :ROFLMAO:
Moreover just like diff. b/w YF-22 & F-22, X-35 & F-35, when our prototype has not flown yet then there is nothing to worry. These things are easy adjustments for engineers.
F-18 SH has pependicular trapezoidal wings with high lift & also high drag. It is ok for 4gen naval jet for slow speed landing. But AMCA is AF jet with regular takeoff & landing speed. If N-AMCA needs to be made then wings can be enlarged like F-35 A Vs C.
Regarding high AoA, the AMCA jets with F414 engines won't have TVC nozzle bcoz i don't think USA would allow modifying the engine. But DRDO has shown slide on our own 3D TVC nozzle R&D. So either they need a stealthy nozzle like in F-35 or something like in F-22 or Su-57.

randombully said:
as for seeing super hornets high payload that you are talking about that inspired you to increase the iwb of amca, as you think it can handle more Internal payload with 2f414 engines
drdo did showed "beatmode" of amca with both external and internal payload in past, so it's pretty well known it can handle more payload than 4 bvr missiles in its iwb with 2f414 engines.
Engines are not a limit for its iwb payload.
Just like f35 also has beat mode, but internally cam only carry 4 missiles( 6 with side kick update)
Click to expand...
Yeah 2 jets with same 2x engines inspired me to push up AMCA & challenge 4gen jets, like i wrote 1st.
This is not about beast mode. I already explained that 5gen philosophy brought the AAMs very close in staggered order with clipped fins. I simply reduced the gap with folding fins, that's all. China looks like the 1st nation to implement it with medium range AAMs, bigger missiles already have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhartiya Sainik
AHCA (Advanced Heavy Combat Aircraft) concept, 5/5.5/6gen? Su-30MKI replacement? TEDBF 2.0?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
Bhartiya Sainik
Bhartiya Sainik
johny_baba
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter
18 19 20
Replies
385
Views
35K
Doctor Doom
D

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top