AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Bhartiya Sainik]

There is an unofficial tweet that AMCA will have 6 AAMs in IWB


View: https://x.com/Tanishq_bafila/status/1835167622419431752

He mentioned IDAX24 & ex-tarangshakti-2024. Do we have any official link confirming 6 AAMs in IWB?

Some static models, CAD, infographic showcase Astr-Mk1 AAM with large fins. Clearly this version is not fit for IWB.




With a little tight fit, 2 SAAW bombs might fit in.
If Astr-1 are staggered then IWB needs to be elongated, but then also neither # of Astr-1 AAMs nor SAAW bombs increase.
Longer the fins of a weapon, longer is the IWB extension required.
If 2 Astr-1 AAMs are removed then total 8 SAAW bombs can be fitted.
W/o any AAMs, 12 SAAW bombs can be loaded.

Similar is the case with Astr-2 AAM with short fins.



There is another CAD online showing that only 4 Astr-2 AAMs or 8 SAAW bombs can fit in.
With little tight adjustment perhaps 2 folding-fin SAAW bombs can be pushed in with 4 Astr-2 AAMs, or 6 SAAW bombs with 2 Astr-2 AAMs.
Maximum 12 SAAW bombs might fit in. Staggering the AAMs would require lengthening the IWB little but that doesn't increase capacity.
If 4 AAMs & 4 SAAW bombs are arranged then it would require to lengthen the IWB more.
But 6 AAMs doesn't seem to fit in.

 

[Ayan Barat]

There is an unofficial tweet that AMCA will have 6 AAMs in IWB


View: https://x.com/Tanishq_bafila/status/1835167622419431752

He mentioned IDAX24 & ex-tarangshakti-2024. Do we have any official link confirming 6 AAMs in IWB?

Some static models, CAD, infographic showcase Astr-Mk1 AAM with large fins. Clearly this version is not fit for IWB.

View attachment 17952
View attachment 17953
View attachment 17954
With a little tight fit, 2 SAAW bombs might fit in.
If Astr-1 are staggered then IWB needs to be elongated, but then also neither # of Astr-1 AAMs nor SAAW bombs increase.
Longer the fins of a weapon, longer is the IWB extension required.
If 2 Astr-1 AAMs are removed then total 8 SAAW bombs can be fitted.
W/o any AAMs, 12 SAAW bombs can be loaded.

Similar is the case with Astr-2 AAM with short fins.

View attachment 17955
View attachment 17956
There is another CAD online showing that only 4 Astr-2 AAMs or 8 SAAW bombs can fit in.
With little tight adjustment perhaps 2 folding-fin SAAW bombs can be pushed in with 4 Astr-2 AAMs, or 6 SAAW bombs with 2 Astr-2 AAMs.
Maximum 12 SAAW bombs might fit in. Staggering the AAMs would require lengthening the IWB little but that doesn't increase capacity.
If 4 AAMs & 4 SAAW bombs are arranged then it would require to lengthen the IWB more.
But 6 AAMs doesn't seem to fit in.

View attachment 17957

There's a mile or two between our wishful thinking and the level of innovation our MIC can come up with.

We can do all kind of fan-made CADs, drawings and calculations on how we can carry 6 or even 8 HELINAs on the in-board pylons of LCH

Again, nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary infact this is the standard multi-rack ATGM launcher on Russian helicopters since decades.

But in reality the maximum effort we have yet seen is a twin launcher for HELINA

Just two ATGMs when the pylons are rated for atleast 200kg.

So...

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

There's a mile or two between our wishful thinking and the level of innovation our MIC can come up with.

We can do all kind of fan-made CADs, drawings and calculations on how we can carry 6 or even 8 HELINAs on the in-board pylons of LCH
View attachment 17958
Again, nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary infact this is the standard multi-rack ATGM launcher on Russian helicopters since decades.

But in reality the maximum effort we have yet seen is a twin launcher for HELINA
View attachment 17959
Just two ATGMs when the pylons are rated for atleast 200kg.

So...

It is about AMCA, AAMs in its IWB & SAAW.
From where LCH & Helina ATGM came in?

 

[Ayan Barat]

It is about AMCA, AAMs in its IWB & SAAW.
From where LCH & Helina ATGM came in?

Read my whole post again but this time slowly, things will make sense

Hint : Focus on the first line, everything else is just an example of that

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Read my whole post again but this time slowly, things will make sense

Hint : Focus on the first line, everything else is just an example of that

Then what about the following weapons launchers showcased by our DoD units?

 

[Ayan Barat]

Then what about the following weapons launchers showcased by our DoD units?

View attachment 17960
View attachment 17961
View attachment 17964
View attachment 17962
View attachment 17965
View attachment 17963

Nothing
What's so special about an ejector launcher?
It's a "minimum requirement" for IWB, not some "groundbreaking feat"
How else are you supposed launch a missile from an IWB if not using an extendable launcher?

This is an AAM in an IWB

It's inside a box closed from 5 sides, the moment you fire it using a rail launcher it'll collided with the bulkhead infront of it and detonate.

You need either some kind of ejection launcher (like most of the 5th gen planes) or a trapezee launcher (like the side bays of F-22) to clear this "cavity".

We're not talking about this; we're talking about something so unorthodox that it enables us to carry 6 AAMs or whatever despite the tight constraints of the IWB we've yet seen on all the OFFICIAL renders/mock-ups from DRDO or HAL.
In case you want examples to better understand what I mean by the term "unorthodox" then mounting a launcher on the swinging door of F-35 is one or the way J-20s can extend their WVRAAMs and close the side doors to reduce RCS is another.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Nothing
What's so special about an ejector launcher?
It's a "minimum requirement" for IWB, not some "groundbreaking feat"
How else are you supposed launch a missile from an IWB if not using an extendable launcher?

This is an AAM in an IWB
View attachment 17971
It's inside a box closed from 5 sides, the moment you fire it using a rail launcher it'll collided with the bulkhead infront of it and detonate.
View attachment 17973
You need either some kind of ejection launcher (like most of the 5th gen planes) or a trapezee launcher (like the side bays of F-22) to clear this "cavity".

Not all this basics, everybody understands this.

We're not talking about this; we're talking about something so unorthodox that it enables us to carry 6 AAMs or whatever despite the tight constraints of the IWB we've yet seen on all the OFFICIAL renders/mock-ups from DRDO or HAL.
In case you want examples to better understand what I mean by the term "unorthodox" then mounting a launcher on the swinging door of F-35 is one or the way J-20s can extend their WVRAAMs and close the side doors to reduce RCS is another.

Yes the focus is to confirm the tweet what DoD is doing after increasing the payload specs. And if it is not true then can it be done theoretically at least.
But from your previous reply citing example of ATGM launcher it seems either you were not aware of these showcased launchers or not confident that our DoD units could do it.
Anyways, you are free to show your ideas, but rather than a pencil sketch, it would be much neater & kind of professional if you use edited CAD diagrams or your own like you used few days back. Take your time.

 

[Ayan Barat]

understand the technical vocabulary.
But here most members are from various background incl. non-tech, just enthusiasts for time pass.

Not all this basics, everybody understands this.

The Dichotomy of a Man

Anyways, the answer to this...

But from your previous reply citing example of ATGM launcher it seems either you were not aware of these showcased launchers or not confident that our DoD units could do it.

...is none of those.
I'm just more aware about the ground realities of how things happen here in our MIC.

I'm aware how DRDO is forced to always "play safe" unlike DARPA working on bonkers ideas because here even a slightest failure would be scrutinized as wastage of taxpayer's money by not just the opposition but even the government itself. The repercussions may include slashing of budget.
I'm aware about the lack of interest forces have here in doing an iterative development of a pretty basic indigenous platform by constantly injecting capital until it becomes something really groundbreaking when they can simply import something.
I'm aware that government can't make defence a significant portion of the budget because then there won't be any welfare schemes resulting in that party losing the next election. And even it is then also the allocation for R&D would be puny compared to salaries. (For starter, in 24-25 the allocation for innovation was just 4.5% of that for pensions)
I'm very well aware about the level of research and patent filings done by Indian universities.

Sometimes you don't need CAD and Finite Element Analysis to predict something. Sometimes trend analysis is enough.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

The Dichotomy of a Man

Misunderstanding others, peeling their generic words, combining different remarks in different replies in different context, manipulating them, creating someone's false image, will only separate & create Dichotomy among members.
----------------------------------------
When i said the following:

understand the technical vocabulary.
But here most members are from various background incl. non-tech, just enthusiasts for time pass.

i clarified further that nobody will understand generic word like LOAD explained inadequately when you mean industry specific internal terms to indicate "aerodynamic load/resistance/effect."
There are many streams of engineering & in all of them we can find defence & aviation enthusiasts. But who understands terms of all streams - mechanical, civil, electrical, electronics, computer/IT, aeronautical, biotech, etc? How many would understand in 1st stance that "loaded/unloaded velocity of EHA" means that of its hydraullic piston with/without the force exerted by connecting control surface?
-------------------------------------------
But when i said the following:

Not all this basics, everybody understands this.

means members are already talking about AMCA, IWB, weapons since DFI days or before. I'm sure a non-tech grad having studied PCM till class-10 or the youngest student member here has sufficient observation that IWB, basically a box of weapons, will need ejector & not a rail launcher to have missile collide with bulkhead & explode.
----------------------------------------------

I'm just more aware about the ground realities of how things happen here in our MIC.

I'm aware how DRDO is forced to always "play safe" unlike DARPA working on bonkers ideas because here even a slightest failure would be scrutinized as wastage of taxpayer's money by not just the opposition but even the government itself. The repercussions may include slashing of budget.
I'm aware about the lack of interest forces have here in doing an iterative development of a pretty basic indigenous platform by constantly injecting capital until it becomes something really groundbreaking when they can simply import something.
I'm aware that government can't make defence a significant portion of the budget because then there won't be any welfare schemes resulting in that party losing the next election. And even it is then also the allocation for R&D would be puny compared to salaries. (For starter, in 24-25 the allocation for innovation was just 4.5% of that for pensions)
I'm very well aware about the level of research and patent filings done by Indian universities.
Sometimes you don't need CAD and Finite Element Analysis to predict something. Sometimes trend analysis is enough.

Well, that's good if you track the industry. You are into journalism or something?
Almost all members are aware at certain level about the bureaucracy & are frustrated about the progress but then knowing the trend & being pesimistic, there won't be anything left to discuss & forum will look meaningless, just watch the news. And it doesn't mean that trend can't change.
Moreover, pictures & diagrams makes things interesting & more comprehending. My old laptop doesn't support Blender like CAD S/w, so thanks to those CAD artists, i can do basic quick edit & show what i think.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Here she is... Made minimal changes. A simple fuselage plug behind the cockpit & bulged spine. Not much but it'll create enough internal volume to move the shit inside to make room for larger IWB & fueltank
Older horizontals to invest lift slightly.
View attachment 17907

Are you CAD artist? Have you showcased this on social media or 3D websites? Do you stick to official specs only or project your own alternatives too? A labeled diagram would look informative.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

There is an unofficial tweet that AMCA will have 6 AAMs in IWB


View: https://x.com/Tanishq_bafila/status/1835167622419431752

He mentioned IDAX24 & ex-tarangshakti-2024. Do we have any official link confirming 6 AAMs in IWB?

Some static models, CAD, infographic showcase Astr-Mk1 AAM with large fins. Clearly this version is not fit for IWB.

View attachment 17952
View attachment 17953
View attachment 17954
With a little tight fit, 2 SAAW bombs might fit in.
If Astr-1 are staggered then IWB needs to be elongated, but then also neither # of Astr-1 AAMs nor SAAW bombs increase.
Longer the fins of a weapon, longer is the IWB extension required.
If 2 Astr-1 AAMs are removed then total 8 SAAW bombs can be fitted.
W/o any AAMs, 12 SAAW bombs can be loaded.

Similar is the case with Astr-2 AAM with short fins.

View attachment 17955
View attachment 17956
There is another CAD online showing that only 4 Astr-2 AAMs or 8 SAAW bombs can fit in.
With little tight adjustment perhaps 2 folding-fin SAAW bombs can be pushed in with 4 Astr-2 AAMs, or 6 SAAW bombs with 2 Astr-2 AAMs.
Maximum 12 SAAW bombs might fit in. Staggering the AAMs would require lengthening the IWB little but that doesn't increase capacity.
If 4 AAMs & 4 SAAW bombs are arranged then it would require to lengthen the IWB more.
But 6 AAMs doesn't seem to fit in.

View attachment 17957

If AMCA's IWB can be widened & Astr-2 AAMs staggered then similar to F-22, 6 Astr-2 AAMs can fit.
In A-G only mode, it may allow total 16 SAAW bombs.

 

[Bleh]

Are you CAD artist? Have you showcased this on social media or 3D websites? Do you stick to official specs only or project your own alternatives too? A labeled diagram would look informative.

Nope I specifically did isographic projections mbased on research to help Kuntal model & did some photo editing fanarts based on them in DFI... Haven't got much time nowadays

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Nope I specifically did isographic projections mbased on research to help Kuntal model & did some photo editing fanarts based on them in DFI... Haven't got much time nowadays

I noticed he joined here but doesn't discuss anything.

 

[Spitfire IX]

According to idrw, Russia has offered to supply an engine for AMCA based on the RD-33.


F414-GE-400
Data from GE Aviation, Deagal.com, and MTU Aero Engines[40]

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm) overall, 31 in (79 cm) inlet
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

Klimov RD-33
Data from Janes Aero Engines, Klimov Website

General characteristics
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Would the greater width and length compared to F414 require a big redesign of AMCA?

 

[Bleh]

According to idrw, Russia has offered to supply an engine for AMCA based on the RD-33.


F414-GE-400
Data from GE Aviation, Deagal.com, and MTU Aero Engines[40]

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm) overall, 31 in (79 cm) inlet
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

Klimov RD-33
Data from Janes Aero Engines, Klimov Website

General characteristics
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Would the extra 30cm over F414 require a big redesign?

RD-33 is nearly 10% underpowered than 414.

 

[GodEmperorDoom]

According to idrw, Russia has offered to supply an engine for AMCA based on the RD-33.


F414-GE-400
Data from GE Aviation, Deagal.com, and MTU Aero Engines[40]

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm) overall, 31 in (79 cm) inlet
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

Klimov RD-33
Data from Janes Aero Engines, Klimov Website

General characteristics
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Would the greater width and length compared to F414 require a big redesign of AMCA?

Russia offers everything including unicorns. We all know how Russia rips off India by providing sub-standard dogshit.

The very reason we are dealing with Uncle Sam is because to get those Manufacturing Standards and Ecosystem. There is zero chance we go for Russian Engines.

 

[shauryaman65]

According to idrw, Russia has offered to supply an engine for AMCA based on the RD-33.


F414-GE-400
Data from GE Aviation, Deagal.com, and MTU Aero Engines[40]

General characteristics
Type: Afterburning turbofan
Length: 154 in (391 cm)
Diameter: 35 in (89 cm) overall, 31 in (79 cm) inlet
Dry weight: 2,445 lb (1,110 kg) max weight

Klimov RD-33
Data from Janes Aero Engines, Klimov Website

General characteristics
Type: afterburning turbofan
Length: 4,229 mm (166.50 in)
Diameter: 1,040 mm (40.94 in)
Dry weight: 1,055 kg (2,326 lb)

Would the greater width and length compared to F414 require a big redesign of AMCA?

Yes, it would require a moderate redesign in the back portion of AMCA and the internals aswell.

But even more than that, RD33 is a piece of shit engine with not only lesser thrust than F414 but also significantly lower engine overhaul time. (2000 hours vs 6000 hours I believe)

 

[Blademaster]

Yes, it would require a moderate redesign in the back portion of AMCA and the internals aswell.

But even more than that, RD33 is a piece of shit engine with not only lesser thrust than F414 but also significantly lower engine overhaul time. (2000 hours vs 6000 hours I believe)

Which one is better? Getting 100% of something that performs 10% less and requires 3 times maintenance but you get complete independence and not worrying about sanctions or getting 80% of something that works great and gives you exactly what you want but forever beholden to someone that can sanction you at the slightest whim and cuck olding you in the process for that last 20%?

And isn’t Kaveri already better than the RD-33? If you had to decide for RD-33 then you might as well go for Kaveri anyways because Kaveri is definitely better than RD-33.

 

[shauryaman65]

Which one is better? Getting 100% of something that performs 10% less and requires 3 times maintenance but you get complete independence and not worrying about sanctions or getting 80% of something that works great and gives you exactly what you want but forever beholden to someone that can sanction you at the slightest whim and cuck olding you in the process for that last 20%?

The point of the F414 is to serve as a stop gap measure until we have a domestic alternative ready, we aren't exactly planning to rely on the F414 forever. Plus I don't think we are going to become Uncle Sam's enemy anytime soon for them to void multiple written agreements which would be disastrous for the relations America has been trying to build.

And isn’t Kaveri already better than the RD-33? If you had to decide for RD-33 then you might as well go for Kaveri anyways because Kaveri is definitely better than RD-33.

Domestic should always be prioritized but its another thing if domestic projects are not able to keep pace, due to poor funding and support by our government ofcourse.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

According to idrw, Russia has offered to supply an engine for AMCA based on the RD-33.

It'll be a delightful sight seeing our new stealth fighter smoking like a coal fired chimney as it breaks the sound barrier.

Spoiler: Don't read this. It's pure nonsense.

IAF has the chance of a lifetime to reengine the Mig-29s with GE414s. That'll be a sight