AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

Spitfire IX said:
M-88 produces insufficient thrust to power any of those types.
Click to expand...
I didn't raise/suggest that point of using it, but the point in that is to avoid arm-twisting by USA.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
I said only few pieces for R&D of prototypes, meanwhile JV can develop the production engine.
IDK diff. b/w 4gen & 5gen engine. If you know please tell us.
I know OPR, BPR, EPR, TeT, but I dont see all 5gen jets having engines with same set of these parameters.
I didn't say anyting about reverse engineering any engine.
Click to expand...
Just like fighters, its a marketing term with no universal agreement to define it.
But generally The "biggest parameter" of 5th gen engine is TWR( with after burner) of 10 or above( or very close to 10).
F135 of f35 has twr of 11.2.

Al51 for su57 is supposed to have twr of 11.25


F119 of f22 has twr of 9-9.5. ( first 5th gen jet engine, 5th gen engines also designed to be relatively more efficient at super cruise)

Ws15 of j20 to have twr of 11.06

For example a later 4th gen f414 in6 has twr of 8.97

4th gen F404 in20 has twr of 8.5.

( both f414 in6 and f404in20 are the " latest" versions of f414 and f404 engine).
 
Last edited:
randombully said:
Just like fighters, its a marketing term with no universal agreement to define it.
But generally The "biggest parameter" of 5th gen engine is TWR( with after burner) of 10 or above( or very close to 10).
F135 of f35 has twr of 10.86.

Al51 for su57 is supposed to have twr of 11.25


F119 of f22 has twr of 9.88. ( first 5th gen jet engine, also designed to be relatively more efficient at super cruise)

Ws15 of j20 to have twr of 11.06

For example a later 4th gen f414 in6 has twr of 9.23

4th gen F404 in20 has twr of 8.5.

( both f414 in6 and f404in20 are the " latest" versions of f414 and f404 engine).
Click to expand...

In my technical understanding, airframe TWR matters much more than engine TWR bcoz :
> only engine doesn't fly, the entire jet flies.
> engine design/components can also change in MLU/ECU.

> some parts of engine like accessories (EMAD, AMAD), gear box, plumbing, electronic box, PTO shaft, cooling system, heat exchangers, structural sensors, TVC kit, front RF blocker, etc could be made by other makers rather than engine makers. So a debate arises that which components add to engine weight.

> so, engine weight doesn't contribute to or change thrust. If MLU using Kevlar, composite, ceramics, etc decrease engine weight by say 100/200/300 Kg, it won't change thrust directly. Suppose if engine weighs 2 tons & we're using 2x in a jet. If MLU using Kevlar, composite, ceramics, etc saves say 2x400=800 Kg & airframe STOW is 30 tons, so we see 20% weight reduction in engine & 2.66% reduction in airframe. The engine TWR increases from T/2000 to T/1600, that's 25% increase, but airframe TWR increases from 2T/30000 to 2T/29200, that's just 2.73%. (please excuse me for maths mistakes if any)

> the weight saved in engine can be added somewhere in airframe feature. The jet makers might wanna add 800Kg of fuel, sensors, aux-equipment, weapons, maintaining the jet's TWR. So the engine improved but not the jet.

Hence engine TWR is just a number to guess & compare engines for non-professionals.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
In my technical understanding, airframe TWR matters much more than engine TWR bcoz :
> only engine doesn't fly, the entire jet flies.
> engine design/components can also change in MLU/ECU.

> some parts of engine like accessories (EMAD, AMAD), gear box, plumbing, electronic box, PTO shaft, cooling system, heat exchangers, structural sensors, TVC kit, front RF blocker, etc could be made by other makers rather than engine makers. So a debate arises that which components add to engine weight.

> so, engine weight doesn't contribute to or change thrust. If MLU using Kevlar, composite, ceramics, etc decrease engine weight by say 100/200/300 Kg, it won't change thrust directly. Suppose if engine weighs 2 tons & we're using 2x in a jet. If MLU using Kevlar, composite, ceramics, etc saves say 2x400=800 Kg & airframe STOW is 30 tons, so we see 20% weight reduction in engine & 2.66% reduction in airframe. The engine TWR increases from T/2000 to T/1600, that's 25% increase, but airframe TWR increases from 2T/30000 to 2T/29200, that's just 2.73%. (please excuse me for maths mistakes if any)

> the weight saved in engine can be added somewhere in airframe feature. The jet makers might wanna add 800Kg of fuel, sensors, aux-equipment, weapons, maintaining the jet's TWR. So the engine improved but not the jet.

Hence engine TWR is just a number to guess & compare engines for non-professionals.
Click to expand...
Bhartiya Sainik said:
Hence engine TWR is just a number to guess & compare engines for non-professionals.
Click to expand...
And that's what I'm doing Here "comparing engines" only.
And it's less about Weight reduction of engine, more about increase in thrust output.
But I'd we just quote the thrust than it doesn't work, like we can make a massive engine with very high thrust, so twr is used to show the performance of engine.
If the new gen engine weighs same as previous gen but let's say give 25% more thrust then it's a big improvement.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
I didn't raise/suggest that point of using it, but the point in that is to avoid arm-twisting by USA.
Click to expand...
I think I get what you are saying but a threat to dump F404 for M-88, an engine that cannot be used as a substitute, is not a credible threat to me. Or to the US, I guess. I guess the US will ignore it.
 
randombully said:
And that's what I'm doing Here "comparing engines" only.
And it's less about Weight reduction of engine, more about increase in thrust output.
But I'd we just quote the thrust than it doesn't work, like we can make a massive engine with very high thrust, so twr is used to show the performance of engine.
If the new gen engine weighs same as previous gen but let's say give 25% more thrust then it's a big improvement.
Click to expand...
For initial range guess & preliminary calculations it is ok, like if we want to guess Chinese or NGAD engines, but that's it.
I forgot to mention that F-22's F119 engine & F-35's F135 engine weights got increased in public records like Wiki, etc, either due to better disclosure with time or MLU/ECU.
The new VCEs will be heavier & bigger probably.
Now how many of us would think to pump up AMCA's engine? So agility of business & decisions also matters.
 
Spitfire IX said:
I think I get what you are saying but a threat to dump F404 for M-88, an engine that cannot be used as a substitute, is not a credible threat to me. Or to the US, I guess. I guess the US will ignore it.
Click to expand...
F414, not F404.
May be USA is really ignoring us on F414 for AMCA to override it with its F-35.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
For initial range guess & preliminary calculations it is ok, like if we want to guess Chinese or NGAD engines, but that's it.
I forgot to mention that F-22's F119 engine & F-35's F135 engine weights got increased in public records like Wiki, etc, either due to better disclosure with time or MLU/ECU.
The new VCEs will be heavier & bigger probably.
Now how many of us would think to pump up AMCA's engine? So agility of business & decisions also matters.
Click to expand...
Will amca being a medium weight jet really need a VCE?
Will it have enough space to hold powerful and large enough avionics to require much higher electrical power than the future 5th gen JV engine in to be in development can provide?
Will the future 5th gen engine not be powerful enough to allow it to supercruise at mach 1.4-1.6 with internal payload?

Like future more efficient and VC engines will definitely be useful for large fighters like the recently showed chinsse j36, which is expected to hold a gaint 3600 trm module aesa radar on its nose and two medium side radars on the side of its nose.
 
randombully said:
Will amca being a medium weight jet really need a VCE?
Click to expand...
randombully said:
Like future more efficient and VC engines will definitely be useful for large fighters like the recently showed chinsse j36, which is expected to hold a gaint 3600 trm module aesa radar on its nose and two medium side radars on the side of its nose.
Click to expand...
VCE is about multi-channel airflow for economy Vs power mode. So different size VCEs can be made for different size jets, manned or UCAVs.

randombully said:
Will it have enough space to hold powerful and large enough avionics to require much higher electrical power than the future 5th gen JV engine in to be in development can provide?
Click to expand...
Please rephrase this sentence properly. I didnt understand.

randombully said:
Will the future 5th gen engine not be powerful enough to allow it to supercruise at mach 1.4-1.6 with internal payload?
Click to expand...
Supercruising with desired load is not just engine thrust but also airframe design with low drag & good lift.
VCEs are made bcoz high BPR results in fuel economy Vs low BPR for speed. Only a VCE can adjust BPR by multi-channels.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
F414, not F404.
May be USA is really ignoring us on F414 for AMCA to override it with its F-35.
Click to expand...
Possible. It is also possible that US wants to limit F414 TOT or India wants TOT for peanuts and GE is refusing that. Correct me if I'm wrong but think that GE wants 500 million USD for F414 TOT.
 
Spitfire IX said:
Possible. It is also possible that US wants to limit F414 TOT or India wants TOT for peanuts and GE is refusing that. Correct me if I'm wrong but think that GE wants 500 million USD for F414 TOT.
Click to expand...
I heared in a podcast that GE wants extra money. 🤑
So 500 M US$ should be compared with amount needed by GTRE/JV to reach the same state of technology into production.
 
Bhartiya Sainik said:
I heared in a podcast that GE wants extra money. 🤑
So 500 M US$ should be compared with amount needed by GTRE/JV to reach the same state of technology into production.
Click to expand...
Comparing prices is a logical thing to do but you need to compare the likelihood of getting an outcome as well. Spending a lot on something that produces results is better value for money than spending a little on something that does not produce results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhartiya Sainik
AHCA (Advanced Heavy Combat Aircraft) concept, 5/5.5/6gen? Su-30MKI replacement? TEDBF 2.0?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
Bhartiya Sainik
Bhartiya Sainik
johny_baba
ADA Tejas Mark-II/Medium Weight Fighter
18 19 20
Replies
384
Views
34K
Spitfire IX
Spitfire IX

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Share this Site

Back
Top