AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[scholar of war]

Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't super cruise just a marketing term for the F22, as it's supercruise was sustained above mach 1.5 and around 1.8?

Like the term hypersonic weapon, although the literal term meaning moving faster than mach 5, it's universally agreed upon that in the military sense is it's the ability to maneuver greatly at speeds above mach 5.

Therefore I thought supercruising below mach 1.5 didn't really count as real supercruise as it is very inefficient due to the drag. Therefore I don't believe KF-21 can supercruise >1.5 with it's F414.

Therefore AMCA should target >mach 1.5 supercruise.
Although I could be wrong please correct me if am so.

Not exactly even if the drag reduces after Mach 1.5 so does the turbofan efficiency, So a balance is necessary. The optimum supercruise speed for the air-frame depends on drag on the airframe and bypass ratio of engine.

People focus too much on pure numbers without focusing on the reason behind it.

Tupolev Tu-144 was casually super cruising at Mach 2 in the 1970s with a measly T/W .44.
(Ideally, the best engine for supercruising plane is a turbojet engine. )

Achieving Super Cruise is not that difficult. F35's inability to supercruise is intentional because it was designed as primarily a strike aircraft (Joint strike fighter project) with secondary air-to-air capability. It should have been named F/A - 35 just like F/A -18 where "A" stands for attack. But US airforce hates bombers and names anything fighter if they can just like have named F-117 a fighter instead of B - 117 or A - 117.

F-35 with its current engine may never be able to supercruise even if they increases the dry thrust as the engine will lose most of its efficiency at supersonic speeds since high bypass ratio engines are not optimal for supercruise. F-35 will need a clean sheet engine to achieve supercruise.

AMCA MK1 most likely will achieve supersonic speeds without afterburners with F-414 but we can't claim anything without getting more info about the design.

Kf-21 is a very recent platform and it will take a lot of time before the complete flight envelop is explored.
Koreans will slowly increase the supercruise speeds in future. KF-21 will be a much better benchmark to compare AMCA instead of a Turkish flying piece of s*** KAAN.

 

[scholar of war]

Made a table out of Bhartiya Sainik's detailed analysis. Will fill out and complete the table later

AIRCRAFT	WEIGHT in Tons	ENGINE	MAX DRY THRUST in KN	FUELWEIGHT in TONS @ 50%	SFC in g/KN/s (x No of Engines)	INLET DIA in CMs	No of AAMs	Total Combat Weight in Tons (Empty + Fuel + AAMs)	Supercruise Speed in Mach (m/s)	Distance covered for every KG of fuel in m/KG	Projected duration of SuperCruise in Minutes	Projected Distance of SuperCruise in KMs
F-22	19.7	F-119	116-120.3	4.1	17 (34)	100	8	24.9 (19.7+4.1+1.1)	1.5-1.8 (514.5-617.6)	128.6-156.7	17-18	527-642
F-35	13	F-135	128.1	4.15	20.3	109	4	18.05 (13.3+4.15+0.6)	1.2 (411.6)		26.6	675
AMCA	12	F-414	57.8-61.83	3.25	20.5-23.25 (41-46.5)	79	4	16.13 (12+3.25+4)	1.2 (411.6)	146.93-177.92	18-23	466-564
RAFALE	8.5	M88-2	50		22.14 (44.28)	70			1.4 (480.2)	217.28
F-18 E/F	14.5		58
EUROFIGHTER 2000		EJ 200	60		21-23 (42-46)	74			1.5 (514.5)	186.41-204.16

The tables is of little use without drag data which is not in public domain. Each plane has different drag characteristics for example rafale has lower subsonic drag compared to EF- typhoon which resulted in superior air-to-ground performance but higher supersonic drag compared to EF - typoon which results in reduced supercruise speed compared to typhoon.


And F/A-18 is a naval strike platform so most likely supercruise is not a priority in design. F/A - 18 is designed to have high lift at low speeds and at high angle of attacks as both these are needed for carrier operation and for air to surface strike missions.

F-35 is also another strike aircraft not optimised for super cruise.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

1) F35 is not supercruising : it can't go beyond mach 1 without reheat, and can only sustain mach 1+ without AB in slight descent.
2) Rafale is not 8.5T in dry. It is more 9T5 (Version C : 9350 kg, Version B : 9550 kg, Version M : 9950 kg)

Internet sources are divided & confusing. This is why i marked AMCA related conclusion in red color.




1 thing i mentioned correct by mistake "CANNOT SUPERCRUISE"

 

[Satish Sharma Ji]

I'm just being too basic if rafales with 2x75kn Engines can reach mach 1.7-1.8
With external a2a weaponry then AMCA mk2 with 2x75kn Dry thrust engines will be able supercruise atleast at mach 1.6-1.7.
AMCA doesn't have canards and also carries weapons internally. It Does weight 2.6tons more.

And AMCA is gonna be more aerodynamic compared atleast fully loaded rafale.

I think AMCA mk1 with 2x58kn engines should cruise above mach 1.
It could be go beyond and sustain for descent time period if afterburner push is given for a while.
Rafale with 2x50kn with 4missile and one ss drop tanks can go mach 1.5 Then why won't AMCA atleast reach mach 1.2
Ig easily if reheat push is given it would sustain them for longer period easily.

Also supercruise means cruising above mach 1.2
According to LM.

So basically surpassing transonic as it has more to do with aerodynamics rather than just the number mach1.2

Transonic means going from subsonic to supersonic. Subsonic ends and supersonic begins at mach 1, so transonic goes from mach 0.8 to 1.2. When you are going through transonic speeds, drag increases and it is really hard to go any faster. This is the sound barrier.

 

[Gandaberunda]

View: https://x.com/idrwalerts/status/1811228461568331906?s=46&t=DQ2dLQSizRMeJsHSEVcJGg

 

[scholar of war]

I'm just being too basic if rafales with 2x75kn Engines can reach mach 1.7-1.8
With external a2a weaponry then AMCA mk2 with 2x75kn Dry thrust engines will be able supercruise atleast at mach 1.6-1.7.
AMCA doesn't have canards and also carries weapons internally. It Does weight 2.6tons more.

And AMCA is gonna be more aerodynamic compared atleast fully loaded rafale.

I think AMCA mk1 with 2x58kn engines should cruise above mach 1.
It could be go beyond and sustain for descent time period if afterburner push is given for a while.
Rafale with 2x50kn with 4missile and one ss drop tanks can go mach 1.5 Then why won't AMCA atleast reach mach 1.2
Ig easily if reheat push is given it would sustain them for longer period easily.

Also supercruise means cruising above mach 1.2
According to LM.

So basically surpassing transonic as it has more to do with aerodynamics rather than just the number mach1.2

Transonic means going from subsonic to supersonic. Subsonic ends and supersonic begins at mach 1, so transonic goes from mach 0.8 to 1.2. When you are going through transonic speeds, drag increases and it is really hard to go any faster. This is the sound barrier.

Here we go again.

Sharma ji, most important factor for super cruise is engine efficiency not engine thrust.

So even if amca start using 2×100 kn engines it won't supercruise if the engine loose 90% efficiency after mach 1.

The loss of thrust after mach 1 is very sever, engines can easily loose mote than 50% of thrust after mach 1.

Supercruise capable planes use engines that are designed with super cruise in mind.

 

[BON PLAN]

Okay thank you, so >= mach 1.8 should be 'true' supercruise target.

Not really.
Every one can have it's own definition. The LM definition when F22 was their latest product is probably mach 1.8.
My own opinion is that all jet that is able to cross and stay above mach 1 not only on a very specific altitude and with at least some weaponery can be called supercruise jet.

 

[scholar of war]

After some Google search, I managed to find this graph. As we can see for turbofan the efficiency is maximum at mach 0.9 after which it rapidly falls. This fall in efficiency is the biggest obstacle for supercruise not the 5-10 % difference in thrust.

Adding more thrust is brute force way of solving a problem of inefficient design.

 

[BON PLAN]

I'm just being too basic if rafales with 2x75kn Engines can reach mach 1.7-1.8
With external a2a weaponry then AMCA mk2 with 2x75kn Dry thrust engines will be able supercruise atleast at mach 1.6-1.7.

Rafale can reach mach 2 (*), but is optimised for a max speed of mach 1.6

(*) : it was the max speed of Rafale A, a bigger and heavier bird than Rafale C/B/M

 

[Spitfire IX]

View: https://x.com/idrwalerts/status/1811228461568331906?s=46&t=DQ2dLQSizRMeJsHSEVcJGg

I do not believe that any of the 4 leading OEM's will ever effect full transfer of ToT for a state of the art engine. This ToT fantasy may sound attractive but it is just a fantasy. Ask RR, SAFRAN, GE or P&W to design an engine with full ToT and I guess they would produce a design using their 1980's/1990's/2000's technology.

Perhaps those OEM's would consider parting with their current technology if paid $20 billion/$30 billion/$40 billion to design an engine and share its technology?

India has a number of offers to design a 110kN-130kN engine for use in AMCA. Cost looks like it would be $5 billion absolute minimum with limited ToT. That's the offer to take or refuse. Making offers of and looking at offers of a state of the art engine with full ToT is a waste of time for all involved.

 

[darkflame]

View: https://x.com/idrwalerts/status/1811228461568331906?s=46&t=DQ2dLQSizRMeJsHSEVcJGg

idrw is unreliable they label any twitter rumor as news, in past the owner of that site used to copy paste discussions directly from Bharat-rakshak forum, these day he makes news from thin air. whatever don't take idrw seriously

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Fighter jet is also a product & part of global business. Who leads & dictates in business?

Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't super cruise just a marketing term for the F22,

Evidently not. LM has been good at marketing techniques, but if F-22 @100% power can cover 527-642 Kms in 17-18 minutes with lowest engine & airframe SFC & no other jet can come close then it is not a marketing gimmick. Other jet makers, American & non-American, could be just jealous.

as it's supercruise was sustained above mach 1.5 and around 1.8?

If SC was SUSTAINED above 1.5 around 1.8 then is it fantastic or horrible? F-22 will fly either less than M 0.8 or greater than M 1.5, b/w that is the wave drag red zone.

Like the term hypersonic weapon, although the literal term meaning moving faster than mach 5, it's universally agreed upon that in the military sense is it's the ability to maneuver greatly at speeds above mach 5.

If Hypersonic missiles pull just as many Gs as any other missile, they are not any less maneuverable, bcoz their turning radius will be larger proportional to the square of the velocity ratios. For example a Mach 10 missile pulling the same Gs as a Mach 2 missile will turn in a circle 25 times larger
Take a look at this link - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Typical_examples)
Tor missile pulls 30G
Sprint missile pulled 100G
Electronics in artillery shells can withstand 15,500 G
So we cannot expect a hypersonic vehicle to turn like supersonic vehicle with same G capacity.

Therefore I thought supercruising below mach 1.5 didn't really count as real supercruise as it is very inefficient due to the drag.

For us civillian newbies, w/o reading basic of aeronautical engineering, every simple thing would appear like rocket science. To understand drag we need to read on things related to fluid dynamics.

Therefore I don't believe KF-21 can supercruise >1.5 with it's F414.
Therefore AMCA should target >mach 1.5 supercruise.
Although I could be wrong please correct me if am so.

We all are trying to guess that

If it is like the 5G definition invented by LM, some margins are likely :
F35 is said to be 5G but fail to meet 3 or 4 of the 5 "5G" exigences : not supercruising at all, the sensor fusion is not fine (but they will fix it), it is not as agile as a F16, it is not affordable. Only OK for Stealth.
If F22 is the standard for supercruise, then supercruise is >= mach 1.8....

It is true that there is no ISO standard for fighter jet generation but in every domain the leader nation(s) research, design, define tech FIRST product & standard of a certain level. Once they take lead it is not impossible but becomes difficult to overtake them or come parallel bcoz they sell their product & services & fund their R&D for next future level, it becomes cycle.

USA leads the R&D & it doesn't care if world agrees to version/generation #. Others can have their own interpretation, if they can manufacture or not. Same thing with MS Windiws 11, Apple iPhone 15 Pro, Samsung Galxy S-24 Ultra, Intel 13/14 gen Core i9, AMD Zen-5 Ryzen 9000, etc.

If Rest of the World want to lead or compete then they just need to build -
- OS which can compete with MS Windows 11
- Phone competing with iPhone 15 Pro & samsung S24 Ultra
- Microchip competing with Intel 13/14 gen Core i9, AMD Zen-5 Ryzen 9000
Similarly, for a specific product called "fighter jet"....
- Fighter Jet competing with 5gen F-22 & then 6gen NGAD, F/A-XX

1 domestic product (F-22) qualified well,
another export product (F-35) failed,
but that doesn't change pace of technology evolution, standards.

Every country is free to build technical capability, fund project & manufacture the best they can think.
Who will do it 1st, 2nd, 3rd will dictate business
Who will not be able to do it at all will be at mercy of lower quality import
Who will partially do it will colaborate

 

[Ketchuplegend]

I do not believe that any of the 4 leading OEM's will ever effect full transfer of ToT for a state of the art engine. This ToT fantasy may sound attractive but it is just a fantasy. Ask RR, SAFRAN, GE or P&W to design an engine with full ToT and I guess they would produce a design using their 1980's/1990's/2000's technology.

Perhaps those OEM's would consider parting with their current technology if paid $20 billion/$30 billion/$40 billion to design an engine and share its technology?

India has a number of offers to design a 110kN-130kN engine for use in AMCA. Cost looks like it would be $5 billion absolute minimum with limited ToT. That's the offer to take or refuse. Making offers of and looking at offers of a state of the art engine with full ToT is a waste of time for all involved.

Even at $20-30 billion, I don't think the home governments of these companies are letting them sell such crucial tech, which some say are part of crown jewel technologies. I remember reading how Britain gave absolute ToT of Rolls Royce jet engine to the Soviet Union post-WWII, as a goodwill gesture. It didn't turn out well for them. And they know this and aren't going to share something so critical with someone who isn't a treaty partner.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

I'm just being too basic if rafales with 2x75kn Engines can reach mach 1.7-1.8
With external a2a weaponry then AMCA mk2 with 2x75kn Dry thrust engines will be able supercruise atleast at mach 1.6-1.7.
AMCA doesn't have canards and also carries weapons internally. It Does weight 2.6tons more.

And AMCA is gonna be more aerodynamic compared atleast fully loaded rafale.

I think AMCA mk1 with 2x58kn engines should cruise above mach 1.
It could be go beyond and sustain for descent time period if afterburner push is given for a while.
Rafale with 2x50kn with 4missile and one ss drop tanks can go mach 1.5 Then why won't AMCA atleast reach mach 1.2
Ig easily if reheat push is given it would sustain them for longer period easily.

Also supercruise means cruising above mach 1.2
According to LM.

So basically surpassing transonic as it has more to do with aerodynamics rather than just the number mach1.2

Transonic means going from subsonic to supersonic. Subsonic ends and supersonic begins at mach 1, so transonic goes from mach 0.8 to 1.2. When you are going through transonic speeds, drag increases and it is really hard to go any faster. This is the sound barrier.

It may not be right to compare 5+ gen IWB jet Vs 4+ gen non-IWB jet.
Before 5th gen, the jets had full freedom for variety of combinations of control surfaces -
- wing
- stabilizers / tail plane
- rudder
- canards
- strakes
- wing features - dog-tooth, vortex generators, vortilons, wing fence, notches, etc

But many of these features are not stealthy hence most likely not part of 5+ gen IWB jet & will need new innovations like TVC, split aelerons, V-tail, etc.
For example, except for Chinese J-20, the world thinks canard & strakes are not considered good for 5th gen stealth.
Su-57 levcons are also criticized. Some say that J-20 has less RCS than Su-57

So a clean config non-IWB jet performs very differently than clean config IWB jet.
A non-IWB jet with light AA load will perform differently than IWB jet having same AA load internally.

A 4.5/5th gen will require gun to fight each other,
but 6th gen may kill their AAMs & airframe before getting close, with DEW-CIWS, LOAL-BVR-AAMs & also perhaps short range MSDM/SACM/CUDA/Peregrine kind of weapons, at least that's the intended idea to get rid of traditional dogfighting.

 

[Binayak95]

As of now, there is nothing as "6th gen"

6th gen is a marketting gimmic used for mature 5th gen designs.

Actual 6th gen will come with either hypersonic stealth fighters or with fully autonomous fighters. Before that, everything is 5th gen.

Actual 6th gen is whenever the USAF reveal the NGAD. While they would be actively researching its successor.

 

[Neil (नील/Нил)]

for amca ?
View attachment 1373
amca's internal weapon bay
View attachment 1374

I am pretty sure that this was talked about before too on this thread but still thought I might want to repost it cause I think it's worth discussing again.

1:4 scaled model of the internal Weopons bay of AMCA

View: https://youtu.be/SJNfTGVF00w?si=kVRzKzEPWC4koGbO

In comparison, if we see videos of the F-35 it seems that from opening the weapon bay, releasing the payload, to closing the Weapon bay tightly and flush into the airframe, it takes the F-35 about 4-5 seconds. It is very important that any stealth plane open and close it's weapon bay in a short span of time or else the enemy might easily exploit this and achieve a radar lock on you and Target you.

Yes I know, the above is just a model to replicate the working of the bay, everyone is aware of the fact that if in real life the AMCA took that much time to open and close it's bay then by the time it's releasing its payload, it will already turn into a burning wreckage by a missile system.

In the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich and Leo Janos (former director of the Lockheed Skunk Works) Major Miles Pound wrote about his experiences in the first Iraq war flying an F117 when a bomb bay door got stuck open after dropping. Here are his own words:

"We came in at three in the morning using only eight airplanes and needing only two tankers to get us there and back, and took out three of the four nuclear reactors and heavily damaged the fourth. Once that first bomb hit all hell broke loose. I dropped my bombs, but I couldn’t get my bomb-bay door closed. That was as bad as it could get because a right angle is like a spotlight to ground radar and a bomb-bay door is a perfect right angle. And out of the corner of my eye I saw a missile firing up at me. I had one hand on the eject lever and the other trying to manually close that stalled bomb bay. As the missile closed on me, the door finally did, too, and I watched that missile curve harmlessly by me as it lost me in its homing. About an hour later I began breathing again."​

But I am not able to understand for how long was the bay stalled? Was it more than 10 seconds? This is something I can't wrap my head around.

Even if it was 10 seconds, then the enemy really exploited the chance and immediately fired a missile. I am 99.9% sure that now the reaction time of SAMs have drastically decreased. So we can expect the enemy to fire a missile at us no later than 2-3 seconds.
Major miles Pound was lucky he could close the stalled bay in time or else he would have been easily shot down by the missile.

The F-117 is the only example of a stealth aircraft getting shot down in combat, it's better we study the minute and intricate details which led it's shootdown, we can learn a lot from it for the AMCA's future in my opinion.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

I am pretty sure that this was talked about before too on this thread but still thought I might want to repost it cause I think it's worth discussing again.

1:4 scaled model of the internal Weopons bay of AMCA

View: https://youtu.be/SJNfTGVF00w?si=kVRzKzEPWC4koGbO

In comparison, if we see videos of the F-35 it seems that from opening the weapon bay, releasing the payload, to closing the Weapon bay tightly and flush into the airframe, it takes the F-35 about 4-5 seconds. It is very important that any stealth plane open and close it's weapon bay in a short span of time or else the enemy might easily exploit this and achieve a radar lock on you and Target you.

Yes I know, the above is just a model to replicate the working of the bay, everyone is aware of the fact that if in real life the AMCA took that much time to open and close it's bay then by the time it's releasing its payload, it will already turn into a burning wreckage by a missile system.

In the book "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich and Leo Janos (former director of the Lockheed Skunk Works) Major Miles Pound wrote about his experiences in the first Iraq war flying an F117 when a bomb bay door got stuck open after dropping. Here are his own words:

"We came in at three in the morning using only eight airplanes and needing only two tankers to get us there and back, and took out three of the four nuclear reactors and heavily damaged the fourth. Once that first bomb hit all hell broke loose. I dropped my bombs, but I couldn’t get my bomb-bay door closed. That was as bad as it could get because a right angle is like a spotlight to ground radar and a bomb-bay door is a perfect right angle. And out of the corner of my eye I saw a missile firing up at me. I had one hand on the eject lever and the other trying to manually close that stalled bomb bay. As the missile closed on me, the door finally did, too, and I watched that missile curve harmlessly by me as it lost me in its homing. About an hour later I began breathing again."​

But I am not able to understand for how long was the bay stalled? Was it more than 10 seconds? This is something I can't wrap my head around.

Even if it was 10 seconds, then the enemy really exploited the chance and immediately fired a missile. I am 99.9% sure that now the reaction time of SAMs have drastically decreased. So we can expect the enemy to fire a missile at us no later than 2-3 seconds.
Major miles Pound was lucky he could close the stalled bay in time or else he would have been easily shot down by the missile.

The F-117 is the only example of a stealth aircraft getting shot down in combat, it's better we study the minute and intricate details which led it's shootdown, we can learn a lot from it for the AMCA's future in my opinion.

In 1990s, F-117 still dropped LGB NOT from large stand-off distance. Range of LGB does not differ too much from a free-fall bomb. The fins are meant for correcting flight path towards the laser reflected point on target. Moreover the iraqi radars were like tin-cans in front of F-117 & B-2.

Today after 2-3 decades the radar tech has improved a lot & many nations have made or imported them.
Hence hybrid stand-off weapons with multiple guidance are researched & made. In initial stages the weapon can follow GPS, INS, TERCOM, etc to proceed towards a general area & then receive precise terminal guidance by active/semi-active RF, Imaging IR, laser, etc.

 

[coldfire2024]

The worst forum i have seen so far:

Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) News and Discussion

What you are suggesting is the american model. Bro, in order to do that you need an incredible amount of money. Did you read the article? Private companies are hesitant to join SPV because of financial risk. What you are suggesting is that they build a prototype to compete with a different...

defence.in

We cant attach diagrams, images. So black & white.
We can't message anyone.
Every message requires approval.
DFI/DFB Vs this defence.in is like today's phone Vs Nokia 3310.

The owner is only for making money copying all articles from idrw and others. I bet the admin cant write one paragraph without copying, also shows url of defence news in which was also notorious for plagrisim that was kicked out i think.

 

[coldfire2024]

idrw is unreliable they label any twitter rumor as news, in past the owner of that site used to copy paste discussions directly from Bharat-rakshak forum, these day he makes news from thin air. whatever don't take idrw seriously

The article mentions Rolls Royce officials. BR is now X Plus nothing new comes out of it now.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Actual 6th gen is whenever the USAF reveal the NGAD. While they would be actively researching its successor.

Yeah. Although some murmurs about cancellation also.