AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

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.
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.
 
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.
F414, not F404.
May be USA is really ignoring us on F414 for AMCA to override it with its F-35.
 
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.
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.
 
Will amca being a medium weight jet really need a VCE?
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.
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.

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?
Please rephrase this sentence properly. I didnt understand.

Will the future 5th gen engine not be powerful enough to allow it to supercruise at mach 1.4-1.6 with internal payload?
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.
 
F414, not F404.
May be USA is really ignoring us on F414 for AMCA to override it with its F-35.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Quoting Air Marshal Rajkumar (R)

On Feb 11 I visited AI 25 and was shown the full scale all composite airframe of the AMCA. After the show extensive RCS measurement tests are planned to fine tune the signature to the lowest possible figure

Source:

View: https://x.com/shiv_cybersurg/status/1892734134319251626

Looking at that static model & infographic, to lower the RCS further, IMO-
- the ladder needs to be eliminated.
- IFRP replaced with spine receptacle like in F-22, B-2, etc. This would requires mixed boom+drouge type tankers. BTW, now the West is even thinking about stealth tanker NGAS.
- stealthy IRST on top if implemented, not like Su-57.
- gun seems to have a bump rather than blended with door.
- glass canopy looks too big.
- canopy arc looks external, ideally should be eliminated, or at least made internal.
- IDK if any clarification on multiple side panels.
- If 1st IOC batch will have F414 engines then that's non-stealthy. We should talk with GE for LO panels.
- extend the rudder & stab aft to hide engines better.
- flatten/blend the actuator bumps more.
- In interview they said they will use RAS but don't wanna put much RAM as it gets off due to friction & heat & after every flight it has to be inspected & spots painted if required. Well, currently paint is also the technical requirement if lesser RCS is desired. Every feature costs something, same like in civilian products. But RAM application is multi-layered bonding, exactly still a secret.

1740128470072.webp
1740128478399.webp
1740128499178.webp
1740128869035.webp
 

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Back
Top