AHCA (Advanced Heavy Combat Aircraft) concept, 5/5.5/6gen? Su-30MKI replacement? TEDBF 2.0?

[Bhartiya Sainik]

The size, shape, weight, structure of AHCA would depend on type & number of weapons it would carry.

LEARNING LESSONS FROM 5GEN JETS F-22, F-35, Su-57
New gen jets would require new gen weapons with modified shape & folding fins, perhaps a different attck profile, like F-22 & F-35 will get MAKO, AGM-88E AARGM-ER, Kh-58UShKE, etc.
For example it is not possible or feasible for Su-57 to carry like big missile even if its tandem IWBs are joined.


We see that IWBs of both F-22 & Su-57 have some disadvantage.
Su-57 carries only 4 AAMs currently, may be 6 in future.
F-22 cannot carry weapon bigger than JDAM currently. MLU might add something.


Su-57 can carry cruise missle, Kh-58UShKE internally.


A bigger collage shows some current weapons fit, some don't.


A new jet can combine both capability by having multiple IWBs. the centerline IWB will carry customized CrM, AShM, ARM, etc.
And 2 parallel IWBs can carry 2 AAMs each, total 4.
If we imagine a modified diagram of Su-57 & F-22 then it would look like following:
NOTE - This is just preliminary & notional, otherwise the engines & internal components will obviously have to be adjusted.


The following is 1 of the many examples already created by CAD artist Rodrigo Avella in his vision of F/A-XX :
The IWB bottom edge would be wider than F-22.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

A preliminary look into engine requirement of AHCA concept:
The JV can be a great opportunity only if we develop 2 engines - 1 regular turbofan for medium jets & 1 VCE for next gen heavy class jet bcoz EU is also developing it.
Among IWB jets, F-22 has highest capacity of 8 AAMs of around 1.1 tons & total STOW or stealthy take-off weight (not MTOW) of around 29 tons.
Su-57 & J-20 stealthy STOW are identical around 29-30 tons.
In my concept if i add more internal AAMs or remove 2 BVR-AAMs & add 2 custom design AShM, ARM like in class of following weapons -
- AGM-158 JASSM (2x1 ton) or LRASM (2x1.2 tons),
- or 4 NSM/JSM (4x416 Kg)
- or 4 AGM-154 JSOW (4x500 Kg)
- or 4 AGM-88G AARGM-ER (4x360 Kg)
- or customized Rudram (2/4)
then the STOW adds 2 more tons & reaches 31-32 tons.

F-22's wet T/STOW = 2x(156-165 KN) /9.8 /29 tons = 1.1 to 1.16
Su-57's wet T/STOW = 2x(142.2 KN) /9.8 /29.27 tons = 1
J-20's wet T/STOW with claimed thrust of WS-15 = 2x(171-191 KN) /9.8 /30.21 tons = 1.15 to 1.3

So we see that different makers/countries have different opinion on sufficient TWR.
Let's consider minimum wet T/STOW = 1.15.
To maintain that TWR, thrust/engine required= (31-32 tons x 1.15 x 9.8)/2 = 175 - 180 KN wet, what JV should also target.
Meanwhile the R&D & prototyping can continue using existing engines like AL-41 or AL-31.

 

[Tsunami]

Next gen manned fighter is something we might never see in numbers with any Airforce except USA maybe. There is Russia and China still doesn't have a fully operational 5th gen fighter yet and AMCA is on paper only rest everything is just not gonna materialize. SO only US is capable for now to go for a Sixth gen fighter and rest everyone will be considering drones by 2040.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Next gen manned fighter is something we might never see in numbers with any Airforce except USA maybe. There is Russia and China still doesn't have a fully operational 5th gen fighter yet and AMCA is on paper only rest everything is just not gonna materialize. SO only US is capable for now to go for a Sixth gen fighter and rest everyone will be considering drones by 2040.

> In today's & future era, a supreme manned fighter will never ever be seen in high numbers bcoz of UCAV tech catching up.
> I understand that we have lots of political, financial, technical issues like engines, etc but still I personally think that this can be done with collective agreement, initiative, funding, facilities. We're on Page#2 so this is just the beginning of exploring this concept.
> Every gen/era has/had multiple jets. 1 jet doesn't suffice. USA is lucky that having just 260+/- F-22s is ok as the world has not equalized with them & they have massive fleet of 4gen F-15/16/18 & good business with F-35 JSF. Also, whoever wants to attack USA, i mean air-force Vs air-force (including naval jets) must 1st cross Atlantic & Pacific oceans. Also, USA is capitalist country but we are socialist mixed economy.
> Our ISRO has done well, Mangalyaan in budget less than Hollywood movie; PSLV, GSLV, etc. DRDO has done few exceptional things like ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) system with PAD (Prithvi Air Defence), Ashwin Ballistic Missile Interceptor, AD-1,2, etc, then KALI electron accelerator with DEW application possibility, etc.
> So we got the brains, it'll take time to level up, depends on GoI/MoD. Americans & Russians are neither aliens nor helped by aliens at Area-51 They are just humans like us, but very management oriented, they get things done either by self orothers.
> IMO, AMCA won't suffice due to limited internal payload & engine thrust. But it can evolve into UCAV wingman for AHCA.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Something that isn't talked about enough. The AMCA is already outgunned as it is. We need a bigger jet with more internal space (at least 6 BVRAAMs + 2 CCMs). Something else I always disliked was the IRST sticking out like a sore thumb. The Mk1 AMCA design can no longer be justified in 2030+ scenarios. Reverse engineer and improve the AL-31 with metallurgical breakthroughs made by the Kaveri program. Squeeze out at least 160kn per engine and stick a pair on a bigger AHCA. And letting it fly without a comprehensive EOTS assembly is ludicrous. China has been flashing their EOTS from the J-20 for 10 years now. The AMCA is simply not a competitive design anymore.

Hence i created this thread
> Lately i showed that AMCA can carry 6 staggered short-fin BVR-AAMs & perhaps 8 staggered folding-fin BVRAAMs.
> IDK if CCM could/should have folding fins. The AMCA design doesn't seem to address firing CCM from IWB. It doesn't have SWB.
> But even all that may not be enough for a stealth jet bcoz now both offensive & defensive weapons have to be designed & carried.
> Missiles will improve & may/will become multi-spectral to increase Pk (Probabiity of Kill), but so does countermeasures & tactics. Pilot's life is priceless & the jets, manned or unmanned, will become costlier due to more technologies used. So both sides/aspects improve.
> IMO, a future stealth jet will need LAYERED APPROACH like IADS to address 3 ranges:
- BVR, with Ramjet AAMs. Ramjet has helped to increase range & speed w/o increasing size.
- WVR, if BVR AAMs get depleted, whether they hit or miss their targets.
- VSR, if BVR & WVR get depleted &/or enemy missile (SAM/AAM) get close. So either DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) or cetain # of self defence missiles like MSDM/CUDA/SACM which are like hard-kill APS (Active Protection System).

> All this becomes huge challenge for a single engine stealth jet, like Su-75 for example, which could carry 3 staggered BVR-AAMs + 2 CCMs, that's all. No signs of VSR-AAMs or DEW yet.
> If CCM cannot have folding fins then AMCA currently can carry 4 staggered folding-fin BVR-AAMs + 2 CCMs internally, that's all.
So obviously AHCA is needed.

> Now we should decide the internal load for AHCA, how many :
- Ramjet LR-BVR-AAMs
- SR-CCMs
- VSR-MSDMs or DEW turrets.

> After this will come engine options available, time needed for new engines & # of engines required, to maintain certain dry/wet TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio), altitude, speed, range, endurance.

 

[AGNI 6 ICBM]

Let's see what our 6 th gen AHCA might look like 🕉


Q:Why do we need AHCA ?
A:To counter 6 th gen of chynese and murican 6 th gen

Qo our AHCA needs to be Multi-role ?
A:Mostly no......It might be just dedicated jet for Air to Air role

True 5 th gen jets aka F22 , Yf23 were only made to address aerial threats and have no capability to carry Air launched ballistic missile & cruise missiles.....Anti ship , large scale SEAD & DEAD missions were handed to dedicated bombers like B2 , B1B...so we might see similar trend in 6 th gen of murica....NGAD is only for air to air roles and B21 is for ground attack roles....

aka NGAD will be highly optimised-designed do only Air to Air roles....

To carry big anti ship missiles In IWB you have to sacrifice good internal volume of jets which has negative effect on fuel carrying capacity & Range....eg Su 57 , F35

FA-xx will be multi role 6 th gen while NGAD will be dedicated air to air role....

Even Our AMCA is dedicated air to air 5 th gen jet with very limited ground attack capability with sub 500 kg bombs similar philosophy of F22 & Yf23....

In murica case ground attack , antiship, SEAD role were given to Dedicated bombers like B2, B21 & B1b....

In our case DRDO GHATAK will take care of anti ship , SEAD role with RUDRAM 2 missile


Rudram 2 missile specifications

Length : ~ 580 Cm
Diameter : 42.5 Cm (circular body)
Range : 350 Km
Weight : ~ 800 Kg





Ghatak will be able to carry 2 x Rudram 2 in toto....

So strike package with 1 AMCA & 2 Ghataks
Will have

1. 4 x Rudram 2 🕉 Air launched BM
2. 6 x Astra Mk 3


Design of 6 th gen jet

Murica are working on Unmanned close combat aircraft bcoz NGAD can't perform in dogfights bcoz of poor maneuverability.....So NGAD would only carry BVR and Close combat aircraft will carry only Close combat missile like python 5 , NG CCM & aim 9x

maneuverability is inversely propotional to stealth.....

as NGAD , J50 won't have any vertical stabilizer & horizontal stabilizers so their overall stealth will be very good and maneuverability will be poor as compared to 5 th gen like F22 , F23 , AMCA

This is what NGAD might look like

Aka with controll surfaces in one plane


Air intakes on ventral surfaces
2D TVC nozzle

NGAD , Tempest are planned to have 2 x 200 Kn ACE to crater needs of Advanced radars , sensors and DEW capability

So our AHCA might have 2 x 180 Kn ACE which might be designed by expertise gained from DRDO JV 120Kn engine

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Good effort, really appreciate it
But in my vision i wan't to define A for "Advanced" in a different way, like a more independent jet. So as per this thread's title, my approach is to have a common fuselage for IN & IAF to save cost, so obviously it needs to be multi-role which isn't a big deal if custom weapons are built.
This is just the beginning & as everybody can see that i'm considering parts of multiple examples - F-22, F-35, Su-57, Su-33, etc. I'm also considering some modular, swappable parts for future MLUs.
For now, i'll present my PoV w.r.t. your points below:

Q:Why do we need AHCA ?
A:To counter 6 th gen of chynese and murican 6 th gen

Murica? Why afraid of using exact names?

Qo our AHCA needs to be Multi-role ?
A:Mostly no......It might be just dedicated jet for Air to Air role

True 5 th gen jets aka F22 , Yf23 were only made to address aerial threats and have no capability to carry Air launched ballistic missile & cruise missiles.....Anti ship , large scale SEAD & DEAD missions were handed to dedicated bombers like B2 , B1B...so we might see similar trend in 6 th gen of murica....NGAD is only for air to air roles and B21 is for ground attack roles....

aka NGAD will be highly optimised-designed do only Air to Air roles....

To carry big anti ship missiles In IWB you have to sacrifice good internal volume of jets which has negative effect on fuel carrying capacity & Range....eg Su 57 , F35

FA-xx will be multi role 6 th gen while NGAD will be dedicated air to air role....

Even Our AMCA is dedicated air to air 5 th gen jet with very limited ground attack capability with sub 500 kg bombs similar philosophy of F22 & Yf23....

In murica case ground attack , antiship, SEAD role were given to Dedicated bombers like B2, B21 & B1b....

In our case DRDO GHATAK will take care of anti ship , SEAD role with RUDRAM 2 missile


Rudram 2 missile specifications

Length : ~ 580 Cm
Diameter : 42.5 Cm (circular body)
Range : 350 Km
Weight : ~ 800 Kg

View attachment 21946

View attachment 21945

Ghatak will be able to carry 2 x Rudram 2 in toto....

So strike package with 1 AMCA & 2 Ghataks
Will have

1. 4 x Rudram 2 🕉 Air launched BM
2. 6 x Astra Mk 3

So that's the thing at least i would want to learn NOT to have dedicated jets & have dependency. USA can do that bcoz of its isolated geography, capitalist economy, geopolitics, global agenda/market/allies/bases. Oher countries need to check their aspects.
What can we observe technically :-
- F-22 can drop GPS guided JDAM & SDB bombs but not LGB, ARM, AShM, CrM from its IWB.
- It doesn't have IRST & EOTS.
- It doesn't have F-35 like HMDS.
- F-35 can fire BVR-AAM & all types of custom AGMs - ARM, AShM, CrM, so these don't have to be BIG like their previous versions. I guess it can fire AIM-9X in LOAL mode also.
- These custom AGMs have sufficient explosive to damage Destroyers, Frigates, ground assets & kill SAMs.
- Being smaller than F-22 still F-35's RCS is 10x than F-22 due to many obvious reasons - export jet, DSI, IFR probe, ladder, more bumpy surfaces, canopy arc(although stealth film applied but still), etc.
- Its Supercruise is inadequate & it lacks TVC, will mostly loose gunfight.
- 11 Bn US$ MLU for F-22 - stealthy pods with IRST, perhaps EOTS function, more EW capabilities, computing components upgrade, perhaps HMDS, new IWB weapons like MAKO, etc.



- MLU for F-35 - computing components upgrade, EO & RF sensors upgrade, ECU (Engine Core Upgrade) for more thrust, cooling & electricity for more EW, may be for DEW also, new IWB weapons, etc.




- Su-57 is super agile, has Levcons, DIRCM, smaller all-moving rudders, 3D TVC with latest nozzle for RF & IR stealth, latest HMS, cockpit upgrade.
- Even after low visual CS, its RCS suffers due to many reasons - intake ducts have RF blocker (F-22 & F-35 too) but not serpentine, IFR probe, round IRST (although has rotating cover with RAM), canopy arc (although stealth films applied but still), etc.
- It needs external LD pod (EOTS).
- Diagrams advertise all types of weapons for IWB but it has not displayed its open IWB yet.



So all these 5gen gaps can be filled & tweaked. Then only we can say that a NG jet is being built. At least USA with its upcoming more powerful engines, custom weapons, advanced sensor fusion, HMDS, virtual cockpit, etc can easily go for multi-role NGAD with retractable EOTS, DIRCM/DEW.

Design of 6 th gen jet

Murica are working on Unmanned close combat aircraft bcoz NGAD can't perform in dogfights bcoz of poor maneuverability.....So NGAD would only carry BVR and Close combat aircraft will carry only Close combat missile like python 5 , NG CCM & aim 9x

I already explained you step by step that if enemy is trained, smart, tactical with good sensors then BVR-AAMs can miss due to tactics, jamming, decoys, etc. So the PCA cannot remain overconfident, hence either it can use speed to stay away or have 2-4 LOAL IIR CCMs.
What if enemy also implements DEW? So If IIR-CCMs also miss somehow due to flares, DIRCM, DEW then either it is gunfight or DEW fight.
Self defence MSDM/CUDA/SACM/Peregrine kind of VSR-AAMs can also be possible.

The agile 4.5gen & 5gen jets will still have opportunity to find & engage UCAVs. So some of these CCA UCAVs who want to be called "Wingman" which always stays together, they need to have afterburner engines to dogfight & same supercruising profile like PCA, otherwise they will be left behind or compelled to go for AAR more often or RTB.

IMO apart fromUCAVs they will have 2 types of manned NGAD - 1 highly capable with export ban like F-22 & other medium exportable jet like F-35.
Neither a nation can depend only on 1 jet in 1 gen, nor a capitalist nation would leave the global market profit fully to others.

maneuverability is inversely propotional to stealth.....
as NGAD , J50 won't have any vertical stabilizer & horizontal stabilizers so their overall stealth will be very good and maneuverability will be poor as compared to 5 th gen like F22 , F23 , AMCA

Even after big rudders, F-22's RCS is lowest 0.00015 sqm.
Also, TVC doesn't reduce stealth if properly designed. F-22's nozzle is geometric, has transpiration IR-cooling & ceramic-RF stealth rear-turbine blocker.
So a tail-less jet can use split-aelerons & 3D TVC for sufficient agility + LOAL IIR-CCMs + self-defence MSDMs + DEW.

This is what NGAD might look like

Aka with controll surfaces in one plane
View attachment 21952
View attachment 21953
Air intakes on ventral surfaces
2D TVC nozzle

There are so many artist models that 1 of them will surely fly.
All these notional CADs are public imaginations fuelled by advertisements of private companies. The military has no obligation to reveal anything before their plan. So the NGAD PCA & CCA can turn out to be anything. It is propagated that USA after flying NGAD prototype has gone back to drawing board after J-36 revealed. So they can change their advertisements & statements anytime.

NGAD , Tempest are planned to have 2 x 200 Kn ACE to crater needs of Advanced radars , sensors and DEW capability

So our AHCA might have 2 x 180 Kn ACE which might be designed by expertise gained from DRDO JV 120Kn engine

Why not aim higher like them? Through JV, why not try a bigger Kaveri?
Otherwise we'll also end up having 3 engines like J-36 or even 4

 

[randombully]

@Ayan Barat @Bhartiya Sainik

So what is the thing about 6th gen that 5th gen cannot be upgraded to, the guy Yuki-serious warfare person(maintenence guy for fa18 and f35 of austrlian airforce)
is talking about.

 

[randombully]

@Ayan Barat @Bhartiya Sainik

So what is the thing about 6th gen that 5th gen cannot be upgraded to, the guy Yuki-serious warfare person(maintenence guy for fa18 and f35 of austrlian airforce)
is talking about.

 

[randombully]

Unfortunately I can't add more screenshot, it's not letting me upload

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

@Ayan Barat @Bhartiya Sainik

So what is the thing about 6th gen that 5th gen cannot be upgraded to, the guy Yuki-serious warfare person(maintenence guy for fa18 and f35 of austrlian airforce)
is talking about.

I've already tried to explain the differences so far by table, points, pics, diagrams, etc.

This is the era of improved education, information proliferation & social media where 10s of 1000s of sufficiently qualified citizens like exspressing & discussing. But it is not possible to analyse them all, nor we are getting paid to do it.
So better to focus directly on technology rather than who says what.
A newer gen is supposed to have & do few things which previous gen either simply cannot do or not w/o penalties of performance, cost, etc. MLU has its limits.
We're still trying to define 6gen but you only think what the upcoming jets can do which F-22, F-35, Su-57, Su-75, J-20, J-35, AMCA, Kaan, KF-21 cannot do or not w/o penalties. Please check all previous posts.

 

[vin pahadi (kumauni)]

If we r talking about 6 genration fighters, than they cant be SU 30 MKI replacement (due to huge cost)....leave 6 genration debate on desi 6 genration aircraft thread. now if we r talking about su 30 mki replacement...than:-
1:- we cant replace su 30 mki with 4.5 genration (after upgrade) with another 4.5 genration fighters like ORCA etc.
2:- if we think about AMCA as su 30 mki replacement. than we hv to remind that air force 6 squad AMCA acquisition plan not for su 30 mki replacement...but to add additional number of squads to reach near 42 squads number. so if we r talking about su 30 mki replacement by AMCA nd we need same number fighters (272) as su 30 mki...than that number (272) of AMCA cost will be still huge. so i dont think AMCA is good option to replace su 30 mki.
3:- su 30 mki will start to retire from 2042 (first batch of su 30 complete their 40 year service), if we didnt suck its milk more. than DRDO should go for a new aircraft design, after completing AMCA design. here i m talking about single engine medium weight 5 genration fighter...just like su 75.
4:- why medium weight desi su 75 is best option - coz its cost effective. In presence of ghatak (stealth bomber), different type of missiles, upcoming higher range MBRL (150-250+ km) etc we dont need our fighter aircraft for ground strike role. even if these fighter carry only 4 BVR internally, u hv to understand that they dont fly lonely in CAP missions. for strike missions even we see 12+ fighters, so we r talking about 12×4= 48 BVR missiles. which isnt a small number. if we r doing defense, than u hv to mind that our s400 nd upcoming SAM hv 250+ km range. so if u put these SAMS near border (100 km from border). they still give near 100-150 km enemy aircraft kill range from border. so if our fighters enter in enemy space (100-150 km), than our SAMS also hv range to engage with enemy fighters.
5:- my point is with different methods we can deal medium weight fighters disadvantage of range, weapon payload, weapon numbers etc in air to air nd air to ground roles. only problem they face in naval missions.
conclusion:- do we really need heavy fighters??? i dont think so. they r not "necessary" for us. just like TU 160 russian bomber.

 

[randombully]

If we r talking about 6 genration fighters, than they cant be SU 30 MKI replacement (due to huge cost)....leave 6 genration debate on desi 6 genration aircraft thread. now if we r talking about su 30 mki replacement...than:-
1:- we cant replace su 30 mki with 4.5 genration (after upgrade) with another 4.5 genration fighters like ORCA etc.
2:- if we think about AMCA as su 30 mki replacement. than we hv to remind that air force 6 squad AMCA acquisition plan not for su 30 mki replacement...but to add additional number of squads to reach near 42 squads number. so if we r talking about su 30 mki replacement by AMCA nd we need same number fighters (272) as su 30 mki...than that number (272) of AMCA cost will be still huge. so i dont think AMCA is good option to replace su 30 mki.
3:- su 30 mki will start to retire from 2042 (first batch of su 30 complete their 40 year service), if we didnt suck its milk more. than DRDO should go for a new aircraft design, after completing AMCA design. here i m talking about single engine medium weight 5 genration fighter...just like su 75.
4:- why medium weight desi su 75 is best option - coz its cost effective. In presence of ghatak (stealth bomber), different type of missiles, upcoming higher range MBRL (150-250+ km) etc we dont need our fighter aircraft for ground strike role. even if these fighter carry only 4 BVR internally, u hv to understand that they dont fly lonely in CAP missions. for strike missions even we see 12+ fighters, so we r talking about 12×4= 48 BVR missiles. which isnt a small number. if we r doing defense, than u hv to mind that our s400 nd upcoming SAM hv 250+ km range. so if u put these SAMS near border (100 km from border). they still give near 100-150 km enemy aircraft kill range from border. so if our fighters enter in enemy space (100-150 km), than our SAMS also hv range to engage with enemy fighters.
5:- my point is with different methods we can deal medium weight fighters disadvantage of range, weapon payload, weapon numbers etc in air to air nd air to ground roles. only problem they face in naval missions.
conclusion:- do we really need heavy fighters??? i dont think so. they r not "necessary" for us. just like TU 160 russian bomber.

I think heavy fighters like su30, f15 Will go
B52 route and will remain in service for very long time as standoff and missile truck platforms.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

If we r talking about 6 genration fighters, than they cant be SU 30 MKI replacement (due to huge cost)...

Our Socialist mixed economy is supposed to be far economical than capitalist free market economy, just like ISRO has succeeded.

.leave 6 genration debate on desi 6 genration aircraft thread.

IDK if such a thread has been made.
You give your best here as per thread's title.

now if we r talking about su 30 mki replacement...than:-
1:- we cant replace su 30 mki with 4.5 genration (after upgrade) with another 4.5 genration fighters like ORCA etc.
2:- if we think about AMCA as su 30 mki replacement. than we hv to remind that air force 6 squad AMCA acquisition plan not for su 30 mki replacement...but to add additional number of squads to reach near 42 squads number. so if we r talking about su 30 mki replacement by AMCA nd we need same number fighters (272) as su 30 mki...than that number (272) of AMCA cost will be still huge. so i dont think AMCA is good option to replace su 30 mki.
3:- su 30 mki will start to retire from 2042 (first batch of su 30 complete their 40 year service), if we didnt suck its milk more. than DRDO should go for a new aircraft design, after completing AMCA design. here i m talking about single engine medium weight 5 genration fighter...just like su 75.
4:- why medium weight desi su 75 is best option - coz its cost effective. In presence of ghatak (stealth bomber), different type of missiles, upcoming higher range MBRL (150-250+ km) etc we dont need our fighter aircraft for ground strike role. even if these fighter carry only 4 BVR internally, u hv to understand that they dont fly lonely in CAP missions. for strike missions even we see 12+ fighters, so we r talking about 12×4= 48 BVR missiles. which isnt a small number. if we r doing defense, than u hv to mind that our s400 nd upcoming SAM hv 250+ km range. so if u put these SAMS near border (100 km from border). they still give near 100-150 km enemy aircraft kill range from border. so if our fighters enter in enemy space (100-150 km), than our SAMS also hv range to engage with enemy fighters.
5:- my point is with different methods we can deal medium weight fighters disadvantage of range, weapon payload, weapon numbers etc in air to air nd air to ground roles. only problem they face in naval missions.
conclusion:- do we really need heavy fighters??? i dont think so. they r not "necessary" for us. just like TU 160 russian bomber.

I thought all the points, pics, diagrams would clear why I mentioned Su-30MKI replacement in title.
> It is 1 of multiplt things mentioned.
> It is just a coincidence in time that SU-30MKI has been our 4gen jet, in era of 5gen so far since 1990 & we don't have any 5/5.5gen heavy class project only bcoz of lack of better engine, that's all.
> My primary focus is a 6gen Naval jet, like F/A-XX. Otherwise don't even think about obsolete design jets when talking about future oriented project/product.
DRDO is working on DEW pod which can be made conformal in 15 years by 2040, let's hope.
Hence in 15 years if we can make 180-200 KN wet thrust class engine then the AHCA can be easily made.
> Some peope panic by hearing "heavy", "big/large" w.r.t. size/weight w/o understanding components of aircraft, w/o seeing how technologies are progressing, what would be future combat jet requirements, how much the airframe size & weight grow, what better engine would be required to maintain TWR, etc, etc.
> A 1-engine 6gen jet can be made & i think USA will make one exportable also, successor to F-35. But that engine will be very powerful, like 200 KN class dry thrust, as they already made 198KN wet thrust F135 in 1990s. So Su-75 type jet can only be 5.5gen due to engine limits. Hence i'm speculating that USA's 1-engine version of NGAD will be size of F-22 & 2-engine version NGAD & F/A-Xx will be bigger.
> If you still can't get the size & weight estimations then i suggest you study the cut-away diagram of F-22 & add weight as per 6gen characteristics : more IWB capacity + DEW + more fuel + bigger/better engines than F119 & F135.
> Hence if my idea of AHCA can be hatched for IN & IAF then it'll be 6G-TEDBF & Su-30MKI replacement automatically.

 

[randombully]

Hence if my idea of AHCA can be hatched for IN & IAF then it'll be 6G-TEDBF & Su-30MKI replacement automatically.

I Don't think it will replace most of su30mki.
I think just like b52 bomber, heavy jetz like su30, f15 Will remain in service for a long time as standoff platforms and missile trucks, unlike medium and light weight non stealth jets.

Also that 6th gen will most likely be bought in far smaller no. Than su30mki, due to its acquisition and operating cost and it being able to command unammanned cca's and work together with upgraded 5th gen stealth jets.
It will be conicidence that by that time signifant no. Of su30mki will be retired, while lot more most likely will be retained and still be upgraded and exist As standoff platforms.

 

[vin pahadi (kumauni)]

Our Socialist mixed economy is supposed to be far economical than capitalist free market economy, just like ISRO has succeeded.


IDK if such a thread has been made.
You give your best here as per thread's title.


I thought all the points, pics, diagrams would clear why I mentioned Su-30MKI replacement in title.
> It is 1 of multiplt things mentioned.
> It is just a coincidence in time that SU-30MKI has been our 4gen jet, in era of 5gen so far since 1990 & we don't have any 5/5.5gen heavy class project only bcoz of lack of better engine, that's all.
> My primary focus is a 6gen Naval jet, like F/A-XX. Otherwise don't even think about obsolete design jets when talking about future oriented project/product.
DRDO is working on DEW pod which can be made conformal in 15 years by 2040, let's hope.
Hence in 15 years if we can make 180-200 KN wet thrust class engine then the AHCA can be easily made.
> Some peope panic by hearing "heavy", "big/large" w.r.t. size/weight w/o understanding components of aircraft, w/o seeing how technologies are progressing, what would be future combat jet requirements, how much the airframe size & weight grow, what better engine would be required to maintain TWR, etc, etc.
> A 1-engine 6gen jet can be made & i think USA will make one exportable also, successor to F-35. But that engine will be very powerful, like 200 KN class dry thrust, as they already made 198KN wet thrust F135 in 1990s. So Su-75 type jet can only be 5.5gen due to engine limits. Hence i'm speculating that USA's 1-engine version of NGAD will be size of F-22 & 2-engine version NGAD & F/A-Xx will be bigger.
> If you still can't get the size & weight estimations then i suggest you study the cut-away diagram of F-22 & add weight as per 6gen characteristics : more IWB capacity + DEW + more fuel + bigger/better engines than F119 & F135.
> Hence if my idea of AHCA can be hatched for IN & IAF then it'll be 6G-TEDBF & Su-30MKI replacement automatically.

look dude...right now we r "actually" working on 4.5 nd 5 genration....which result "may be" fruitful untill 2035. after that do u really think in next 5-10 years, we r ready to make a 6 genration aircraft??? which will replace our su 30 mki. if yes, than excellent. if no, than we hv to replace su 30 mki with a 5 or 5.5 genration fighter.
1:- my assessment based on our recent capabilities, not based on other countries capabilities nd which technology they r using. so yes a 5-5.5 genration medium weight single engine fighter jet make more sense to replace our su 30 mki fleet. instead "any 6 genration aircraft". yeah we will remainb10-20 years behind than other countries in aircraft segment. but it will far better than today, when we r 30-40 year behind in fighter aircraft manufacturing. coz we r building a 4 genration (tejas) fighter now, which other countries made 30-40 year before. definitely in some areas, like aesa radar, RWR, bvr missile, jamming pods etc we r making current level of technology.
2:- if we imported any other countries 6 genration fighter or get engine etc....than that is different topic to discuss.

 

[randombully]

look dude...right now we r "actually" working on 4.5 nd 5 genration....which result "may be" fruitful untill 2035. after that do u really think in next 5-10 years, we r ready to make a 6 genration aircraft??? which will replace our su 30 mki. if yes, than excellent. if no, than we hv to replace su 30 mki with a 5 or 5.5 genration fighter.
1:- my assessment based on our recent capabilities, not based on other countries capabilities nd which technology they r using. so yes a 5-5.5 genration medium weight single engine fighter jet make more sense to replace our su 30 mki fleet. instead "any 6 genration aircraft". yeah we will remainb10-20 years behind than other countries in aircraft segment. but it will far better than today, when we r 30-40 year behind in fighter aircraft manufacturing. coz we r building a 4 genration (tejas) fighter now, which other countries made 30-40 year before. definitely in some areas, like aesa radar, RWR, bvr missile, jamming pods etc we r making current level of technology.
2:- if we imported any other countries 6 genration fighter or get engine etc....than that is different topic to discuss.

As for the "6th gen" you are talking what is a 6th gen?
Because the tech that amca mk2 will have will rival tech the stealth jets of 2035 will have.
Whether it's integrating as part of larger system comprised of many other fighters, Loyal wingman, force multipliers like awacs, reconnaissance.
Whether it's advance avionics.
Whether it's unammaned mode flying capabilities.
The only thing amca will have different Is other 6th gen jets will have relatively more stealthy and less manurable tailless designs and will be bigger in size( more range, endurance, more powerful avionics, but again f15 also has alll those compared to f16 but both are considered same genration) while amca will be medium weight.
So amca will not be able to fulfill the capabilities those large jets will fulfill but it doesn't mean it will be technologically a generation behind, we can just take amca's tech and scale it up in size for bigger jet.

For example f22 and f35 both are considered 5th gen because of stealth.
But avionics wise f22 is the most outdated 5th gen out there, rafale f4, f15ex, j16 etc while being non stealth are more advance than f22 in avionics.
Not to mention f22 also lacks irst/ eots, DAS, and other sensors f35 have.
If we take f22 as bench mark for 5th Gen, then it's not wrong to call f35, j20 as 5.5+gen jets, or even a 6th gen if we consider increased computation capabilities, network Centric capabilities and advance avionics as generational leap.

And that 4th gen tejas m2 we are biulding will rival 5th gen in terms of avionics.
And that non stealth tejas mk2 we are biulding is more advance than f22 in terms of sensors and avionics.


There's a reason usaf was thinking of retiring f22's by 2030.
And now they are going to upgrade Some f22 to f35's standard, while rest will be retired.





We are also working on future tech that may come.
So by that time we will have all the tech for a advance(by the standards of 2035) stealthy heavy fighter jet.
The only thing that has a possibility to be our archellies heel by that time could be engine for a heavy fighter jet.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

I Don't think it will replace most of su30mki.
I think just like b52 bomber, heavy jetz like su30, f15 Will remain in service for a long time as standoff platforms and missile trucks, unlike medium and light weight non stealth jets.
Also that 6th gen will most likely be bought in far smaller no. Than su30mki, due to its acquisition and operating cost and it being able to command unammanned cca's and work together with upgraded 5th gen stealth jets.
It will be conicidence that by that time signifant no. Of su30mki will be retired, while lot more most likely will be retained and still be upgraded and exist As standoff platforms.

> After writing so clearly point wise also you don't get it that it has to do more with catching up with global tech rather than replacing the Su-30MKI. Life extension of older gen jets didn't affect newer gen R&D in USA, Russia, China, EU. Bcoz a new project takes 15-20 yrs, so it has to be initiated today & we should automate & accelerate R&D with AI/ML, robotics, etc.
> Obviously the newer gen jets will be costly & hence in lower numbers. With time as things become economical, the older gen jets are gradually retired & replaced with newer gen jets. That's what happened in era of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen jets. 1 day all 4gen jets will disappear like we don't see 3rd gen jets today in a decent AF. It is their natural fate. So the Su-30MKI & all other 4.5gen jets will be juicy targets for not only 5gen but the 5gen is supposed to be vulnerable target to 6gen.
> The adversaries will also have all of those - standoff platforms & weapons, but their 4.5gen jets will also be vulnerable.
> CCAs can be controlled from LCA type jets also with tablet strapped on his thighs, from AWACS or any place with SatCom link. But if they're operated from obsolete vulnerable jets & if the manned jet is taken out then the CCAs will be handicapped with no instructions untill their control is handed over via SatCom.

 

[randombully]

Bcoz a new project takes 15-20 yrs, so it has to be initiated today & we should automate & accelerate R&D with AI/ML, robotics, etc.

Well then how about just joining French in their fcas project for naval stealth jet and ditch tedbf.
Our navy can order 60-100 fcas jets by that time.

Instead of 2038, even If facs comes in 2040 it won't be a problem.
And as fcas is also supposed to be carrier capable it will be relatively smaller jet compared to other heaveir 6th gen jets.
That's one of the main reason why fcas and brutish gcap are more mixed into one project.

We are already going for jv with 100% know why and know how with either French or brits.
We can deepen the coorporation, by moving way past engine and joint development of future tech that will be used in our amca and their fcas.
Along with that future order of fcas for IN with indigenous engine, and avionics that are jointly developed, and domestic production of airframe with tot.


And French do seem desperate for a partner that can fund development of next gen jet, if they are willing to share engine tech then they most likely will not mind sharing others.

That way we can either shorten amca time or make AMCa more advance, and also have advance stealth jet for navy by 2040.
All while achieving atmanirbharta.



Because that's **The only way**we can initiate it today/now.

Or else it will be initiated after 2030 and enter service near 2050.

Well my pipe dream ends here.

 

[randombully]

CCAs can be controlled from LCA type jets also with tablet strapped on his thighs, from AWACS or any place with SatCom link

Controlled is one thing.
Cca's and command jet being integrated as one large system is another
There's a reason both russian china going for twin seat j20 and su57.
Now LM has said with enough AI and systems f35 "can probably" work without WSO.
But locked Martin didn't say that it can be done by a tablet strapped to pilot.

Best way is still a separate wso behind pilot.

If it was as easy and effective to control them from awacs and sat com they wouldn't be going this route.