AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[shade2]

Time is relative my friend. Soon depends on which rishtedar is defining it. For sarkari mamas it is as long as service period lasts. For chini chacha it was yesterday. For paki sautela bhai it is 2 years (apparently based on their delusions). For our fauji bhai soon may be too late (they are the ones who will fight the war), for jernail dada soon is during the next service cheifs tenure. For bheeshm pitamaha (Modi ji) soon is when next baniya deal comes (via Adani). For the likes of you and me, we are not in the family for anyone to care what soon means for us.

If this Adani meme that chamchas peddle was true we would be doing giri of Gripen right now since they had a tie up with Adani for (((ToT))) i.e giri.
Instead we have the Tejas mk2 which is "We have Gripen at home" right down to F414 engine

Rest all is accurate, and for Modiji he genuinely believes today not era of war and all, runs a 240 seat coalition Govt and is not the 56" chested leader from 2014 so you can forget about any risk taking in these next 4 years, least of all for defense, it has a silver lining in the form of even more suppression for G2G and piecemeal imports

 

[NerVik]

If this Adani meme that chamchas peddle was true we would be doing giri of Gripen right now since they had a tie up with Adani for (((ToT))) i.e giri.
Instead we have the Tejas mk2 which is "We have Gripen at home" right down to F414 engine

Rest all is accurate, and for Modiji he genuinely believes today not era of war and all, runs a 240 seat coalition Govt and is not the 56" chested leader from 2014 so you can forget about any risk taking in these next 4 years, least of all for defense, it has a silver lining in the form of even more suppression for G2G and piecemeal imports

True, Adani did not get the gripen deal, but I am seeing Adani get a lot of other deals too (those Drishti uavs for example) but my point was Modi ji is now more into the baniya mentality. He doesn't need to be war hungry He just needs his def minister to start putting pressure on the psus and chiefs to get indigenous equipment fast tracked. But he's not even doing that.

 

[pipebomb]

Think ADA/IAF has missed the bus on adopting longitudinal weapons bay for AMCA which could've gave us more strategic versatility

And could've been more innovative with AMCA's design

 

[Ayan Barat]

Think ADA/IAF has missed the bus on adopting longitudinal weapons bay for AMCA which could've gave us more strategic versatility

And could've been more innovative with AMCA's design

It's not an ADA problem, it's something that's pretty common with our MIC. We're still in our infancy in terms of "optimising" a system to its maximum potential like you'd find in something from say Lockheed Martin or Heckler & Koch. VSHRODS is slightly bulkier than its contemporaries. ASMI is considerably bigger than its.

Similar is the case of Internal Weapons Bay. This is the current AMCA design

The maximum AAMs you can carry is just four. Now let's see what Boeing was doing when it was designing an IWB.

Just see the packing efficiency they've achieved; crammed 4x AIM-120s in that tiny space. If we too had done something similar then by increasing the current dimensions by just a bit, we could've been carrying 8x AAMs.

Even in terms of AAMs, they are not optimized for future roles.
AIM-120C5...

...PL-15...

...and even Meteor with all its ducts...

..have considerably reduced footprint compared to Astra; which sadly still seems to carry the legacy of R-77's mid-body wings.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Think ADA/IAF has missed the bus on adopting longitudinal weapons bay for AMCA which could've gave us more strategic versatilityView attachment 20075View attachment 20076

And could've been more innovative with AMCA's design

View attachment 20077

YF-23 is much bigger heavy class jet. AMCA simply doesn't have space for tandem bays.
How are you comparing Su-75 here?

 

[pipebomb]

YF-23 is much bigger heavy class jet. AMCA simply doesn't have space for tandem bays.
How are you comparing Su-75 here?

What size had to do with longitudinal weapons bay ?

 

[pipebomb]

It's not an ADA problem, it's something that's pretty common with our MIC. We're still in our infancy in terms of "optimising" a system to its maximum potential like you'd find in something from say Lockheed Martin or Heckler & Koch. VSHRODS is slightly bulkier than its contemporaries. ASMI is considerably bigger than its.

Similar is the case of Internal Weapons Bay. This is the current AMCA design
View attachment 20080
The maximum AAMs you can carry is just four. Now let's see what Boeing was doing when it was designing an IWB.
View attachment 20082
Just see the packing efficiency they've achieved; crammed 4x AIM-120s in that tiny space. If we too had done something similar then by increasing the current dimensions by just a bit, we could've been carrying 8x AAMs

AMCA bay seems kinda shallow. I could be wrong on this

Are longitudinal bays deeper ? I don't know

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

What size had to do with longitudinal weapons bay ?

Everything. There are many other components in a jet which need space. Behind IWB of AMCA is engine bay & in front is the landing gear bay. The engines are not separated like in Su-57.
Do 1 thing... many diagrams & pics have been shared already. Try fitting/superimposing 2x2 AAMs in tandem like in Su-57, you'll get your answer.

 

[Ayan Barat]

AMCA bay seems kinda shallow. I could be wrong on this

I'd say AMCA's pretty much in line with "first tranche" of 5th gen fighters like F-22 and J-20 which have bit shallow IWB as they're optimised more for A2A missiles. Like most of the time F-22s fly with only AIM-120s or J-20s with PL-15.

In the "second tranche" of 5th gen fighters you'd start seeing the IWB getting bit more spacious, this is the reason F-35s support far more different types of armament compared to F-22, especially in A2G category.

Are longitudinal bays deeper ? I don't know

There's no hard and fast rule on how exactly you can have your bay; it's solely upto your ingenuity. You can have a shallow, but wide bay like F-22/J-20 that can accomodate 4-6x AAMs. You can have a shallow, thin but long bay like Su-57 that can have 4-6x AAMs in tandem. You can also have a small but deep bay that uses some kind of multiple launch rails to accomodate 4-6x AAMs.

Do whatever permutation combination of LxBxH you like to get the required volume to accomodate the number of missiles you want. The only constraints is that it shouldn't be so big that it starts interfering with other functionings of the aircraft; like air intake gets smaller or there's no room for landing gears or fuel capacity is seriously compromised.

 

[125mm_Smoothbore]

What size had to do with longitudinal weapons bay ?

smaller aircraft = smaller bay
larger aircraft = bigger bay

simple

 

[pipebomb]

I'd say AMCA's pretty much in line with "first tranche" of 5th gen fighters like F-22 and J-20 which have bit shallow IWB as they're optimised more for A2A missiles. Like most of the time F-22s fly with only AIM-120s or J-20s with PL-15.

In the "second tranche" of 5th gen fighters you'd start seeing the IWB getting bit more spacious, this is the reason F-35s support far more different types of armament compared to F-22, especially in A2G category.

There's no hard and fast rule on how exactly you can have your bay; it's solely upto your ingenuity. You can have a shallow, but wide bay like F-22/J-20 that can accomodate 4-6x AAMs. You can have a shallow, thin but long bay like Su-57 that can have 4-6x AAMs in tandem. You can also have a small but deep bay that uses some kind of multiple launch rails to accomodate 4-6x AAMs.

Do whatever permutation combination of LxBxH you like to get the required volume to accomodate the number of missiles you want. The only constraints is that it shouldn't be so big that it starts interfering with other functionings of the aircraft; like air intake gets smaller or there's no room for landing gears or fuel capacity is seriously compromised.

I think it's paramount to modify our AMCA design in development of the new Chinese threat. There won't be a need for any major change to AMCA's subsystem.

We need a longer & deeper IWB which could carry atleast rudram-3 or future hypersonic weapons

AMCA is already behind. Should use this opportunity to future proof our design

 

[pipebomb]

Everything. There are many other components in a jet which need space. Behind IWB of AMCA is engine bay & in front is the landing gear bay. The engines are not separated like in Su-57.
Do 1 thing... many diagrams & pics have been shared already. Try fitting/superimposing 2x2 AAMs in tandem like in Su-57, you'll get your answer.

Move the engines appart like yf23, su57, mig29 and VOILA! you have the space to fit a longer IWB

 

[Ayan Barat]

AMCA is already behind. Should use this opportunity to future proof our design

That's for no doubt

No need to proceed with the existing design of AMCA, no point in getting an assembly line that'll produce already obsolete fighters. Redesign it as soon as possible, if nothing else then just increase the magazine depth. Assembly jigs are yet to be made, it's the only window we've for modification. Once those are made you can't change the design.
The threat now requires an AHCA, AMCA with 4 BVR-AAMs won't cut through.

But what you're asking for is bit too much. I'm getting your idea of separating the engines further and using the arch between them like Su-57 for a "better" bay. Where you can carry two groups of three AAMs in tandem for a total of 6x AAMs or instead carry one large Rudram-II type munition.

But these kinds of changes become "redesigning" rather than "tweaking" and for that we'd need to go back to the drawing board, start from scratch and most importantly ask for funds. There are so many different civilian, political, military levels and redtapism involved in that last step that you don't know when someone would blatantly say at your face "Abhi to kuch din pehle funds release hue the? Phir se kis baat ke R&D funds!?"

So currently if we manage to get just 6-8 AAMs then also it would be way more than enough. Rudram-III phir kabhi

 

[pipebomb]

That's for no doubt

But what you're asking for is bit too much. I'm getting your idea of separating the engines further and using the arch between them like Su-57 for a "better" bay. Where you can carry two groups of three AAMs in tandem for a total of 6x AAMs or instead carry one large Rudram-II type munition.

But these kinds of changes become "redesigning" rather than "tweaking" and for that we'd need to go back to the drawing board, start from scratch and most importantly ask for funds. There are so many different civilian, political, military levels and redtapism involved in that last step that you don't know when someone would blatantly say at your face "Abhi to kuch din pehle funds release hue the? Phir se kis baat ke R&D funds!?"

So currently if we manage to get just 6-8 AAMs then also it would be way more than enough. Rudram-III phir kabhi

Exactly

It would be a major redesigned BUT it won't be from the scratch. Many sub system will remain as it is or would need minor tweaking.

We could dump the TVC requirement if that helps simplify the task

AMCA will remain handicapped for next 30 yrs if not redesigned. And IAF will look for imports

 

[AbRaj]

Complete noob here. China has 6th gen and Pak will get 40 odd 5th gen in couple of years. Man it does not look good for India. God save us. How did we come to this, surely this is Murphys law and it does end with two front war. Really hope to see some good news around amcs and tejas soon.

Good news is- Kametii bana di hai jee. Ab thand pao ji

 

[AbRaj]

Think ADA/IAF has missed the bus on adopting longitudinal weapons bay for AMCA which could've gave us more strategic versatilityView attachment 20075View attachment 20076

And could've been more innovative with AMCA's design

View attachment 20077

Its simple redesign really. Just remove the front and rear landing gears and convert the whole underbelly into a weapon bay. Easy peasy

 

[Corvus Splendens]

That's for no doubt

So currently if we manage to get just 6-8 AAMs then also it would be way more than enough. Rudram-III phir kabhi

Depending on how deep the Ghatak's bay turns out to be, we may just get a stealth ARM carrier. Quite a reasonable ask since it's unmanned and almost bigger than a Tejas Mk1.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

If the Ramjet intake is shortened then 6 Astr-3 SFDR AAMs might fit relatively better. But there could be military safety specs which may or may not allow this.
View attachment 19902

We see Akash-1 SAM also has Ramjets which don't extend all the way backwards.
View attachment 19901

The intake fairing in Meteor is long bcoz it houses some electronics, fin actuators. Same could be with Astr-3 SFDR. But if the AAM body can be adjusted then it can favor AMCA.
View attachment 19900

Continuing on this agenda of internal load, 2 days back someone shared PL-15E AAM with folding fins from Zhuai airshow. AFAIK big/heavy missile do have folding fins but a medium missile is yet to be seen with AIM-120 AMRAAM, Meteor, etc. R-77 have folding grid fins.



Now there is no CAD of Meteor, Astr-3 SFDR with folding fins & i can't use PL-15E to depict in AMCA
So i'm just clipping the fins in SFDR pic. IDK the safety gap spec but this looks like a safe fit, that too w/o staggering.



And i had already shown that 6 staggered AAMs of short fin version of Astr-2 could easily fit. So if we use folding fin version of it now then total 8 staggered AAMs or 16 SAAW bombs could fit. The ejectors shoud be firm & free from vibrations.



If this config is considered unsafe then in worst case 6 AAMs or 12 SAAW bombs can fit easily.

I think it's paramount to modify our AMCA design in development of the new Chinese threat. There won't be a need for any major change to AMCA's subsystem.
We need a longer & deeper IWB which could carry atleast rudram-3 or future hypersonic weapons
AMCA is already behind. Should use this opportunity to future proof our design

Just like 300Km range dual-pulse AGM-88G AARGM-ER can fit in F-35, similarly customised Rudram can be made for AMCA.

 

[Ayan Barat]

It would be a major redesigned BUT it won't be from the scratch. Many sub system will remain as it is or would need minor tweaking.

Obviously things like cockpit and wings won't be unchanged but everything else would need a "recalibration". As engine separation increases, the chances of a plane going into a spin incase of a single engine failure also increases so now you'll need to redesign the rudders to compensate for this. Drag characteristics would change because of all the added bulk. You'll need to completely redesigned the air intake manifolds. Every single bulkhead in the fuselage would need to be redesigned from the ground up.

Again these things are not that big of a deal for Boeing or Raytheon who have high cash flows for R&D, they can cycle a completely redesigned prototype in less than an year. But unfortunately we don't enjoy that luxury.

AMCA will remain handicapped for next 30 yrs if not redesigned. And IAF will look for imports

If this too falls prey to Mk-1, Mk-1A, Mk-2...then yes; our dream of overmatch would continue being a dream.

Depending on how deep the Ghatak's bay turns out to be, we may just get a stealth ARM carrier. Quite a reasonable ask since it's unmanned and almost bigger than a Tejas Mk1.

Arree aapke muh me ghee shakkar

But don't know why I've this weird feeling that we might be going for two medium sized (built around 2000lbs class PGMs) bomb bays on each side. Somthing similar to Boeing's X-45 line-up.

 

[shade2]

Again these things are not that big of a deal for Boeing or Raytheon who have high cash flows for R&D, they can cycle a completely redesigned prototype in less than an year. But unfortunately we don't enjoy that luxury.

Bottleneck here is just paisa or is it also having the number of engineer dudes to do the CAD design and software simulations?