AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

Is EJ230 the answer to the AMCA non-engine problem? It is claimed that Eurojet has offered it to SAAB. Gripen E sales to Colombia may be blocked through US refusal to allow GE F414 transfer to the country. If that were to happen, all Gripen E export sales would be at risk. Canada could turn out to buy a lot of Gripen E if it becomes available with a non-US engine.

I guess that development of a 117 kN EJ230 from the 90 kN EJ200 would cost far less and be far quicker than developing an engine from scratch. Additionally, if Eurojet, SAAB, India and Canada provided development funding, the cost to each party would be low.
 
Is EJ230 the answer to the AMCA non-engine problem? It is claimed that Eurojet has offered it to SAAB. Gripen E sales to Colombia may be blocked through US refusal to allow GE F414 transfer to the country. If that were to happen, all Gripen E export sales would be at risk. Canada could turn out to buy a lot of Gripen E if it becomes available with a non-US engine.

I guess that development of a 117 kN EJ230 from the 90 kN EJ200 would cost far less and be far quicker than developing an engine from scratch. Additionally, if Eurojet, SAAB, India and Canada provided development funding, the cost to each party would be low.
UK, Canada doesn't seem to be friendly to India.
UK relations with other western nations would obviously be different than with India.
Industrial deals are for decades while political regimes can change every few years.

F-35 was offered XA-100/1 based AETP-VCE, but only ECU happening.
Hence a brand new engine design should be 6gen oriented & compatible to 5gen also, have characteristics like VC, direct drive generator, rear ceramic RF stealth blocker, 3D TVC, different cooling techniques like film cooling, liquid cooling, transpiration cooling, etc, use of thermal materials like Kevlar in M-88, etc.
 
UK, Canada doesn't seem to be friendly to India.
UK relations with other western nations would obviously be different than with India.
Industrial deals are for decades while political regimes can change every few years.

F-35 was offered XA-100/1 based AETP-VCE, but only ECU happening.
Hence a brand new engine design should be 6gen oriented & compatible to 5gen also, have characteristics like VC, direct drive generator, rear ceramic RF stealth blocker, 3D TVC, different cooling techniques like film cooling, liquid cooling, transpiration cooling, etc, use of thermal materials like Kevlar in M-88, etc.
Nothing stops India waiting for a new engine with 6G characteristics. India can keep making AMCA with F414 until a new engine is available. It looks like RR has been selected to make it but that is speculative until a contract is signed. Same would be true for an engine from any OEM.
 
Found this para written by a guy on another forum.


"Not needed, really. USAF's F-35 don't really use anything other than medium range missiles. It's understandable that for the next generation designers concluded that the number of times short range missiles would be beneficial is not worth the effort (added weight, space)."

Maybe the reason amca doesn't have side bays for WVR Missiles.
 
Found this para written by a guy on another forum.


"Not needed, really. USAF's F-35 don't really use anything other than medium range missiles. It's understandable that for the next generation designers concluded that the number of times short range missiles would be beneficial is not worth the effort (added weight, space)."

Maybe the reason amca doesn't have side bays for WVR Missiles.


So I'm confused.
Why do next generation of fighters don't need to carry WVR missiles?
Given they are stealth, tracking and even detecting them(using x band) at distances more than wvr will be hard.

I think the argument is that datalinked BVR weapons with HOB and active seeker heads can handle the rare instances of WVR engagements without compromising missile load with smaller munitions and smaller side bays that have rare use cases.

It was previously the case that getting a radar lock and firing a BVR AAM at a target required specific orientations and ranges, as well as time delays for creating a firing solution. IR guided WVR weapons had faster reaction times with less limitations on relative position and velocity (at close range). These weapons were mounted in side bays to allow the seekers to see targets on either side of the aircraft for lock on before launch. But if you can just look at a target and kick a BVR AAM onto it, with the missile locking on after launch, that removes a lot of need for separate missile types and dedicated bays.

ETA: as someone else noted in another thread, the F-22 side bays were originally to be AIM-120 sized to give an all BVR option. This requirement was relaxed for weight/volume reasons.



Another reason for probably why amca doesn't have side bays.
 
Found this para written by a guy on another forum.


"Not needed, really. USAF's F-35 don't really use anything other than medium range missiles. It's understandable that for the next generation designers concluded that the number of times short range missiles would be beneficial is not worth the effort (added weight, space)."

Maybe the reason amca doesn't have side bays for WVR Missiles.
So I'm confused.
Why do next generation of fighters don't need to carry WVR missiles?
Given they are stealth, tracking and even detecting them(using x band) at distances more than wvr will be hard.

I think the argument is that datalinked BVR weapons with HOB and active seeker heads can handle the rare instances of WVR engagements without compromising missile load with smaller munitions and smaller side bays that have rare use cases.

It was previously the case that getting a radar lock and firing a BVR AAM at a target required specific orientations and ranges, as well as time delays for creating a firing solution. IR guided WVR weapons had faster reaction times with less limitations on relative position and velocity (at close range). These weapons were mounted in side bays to allow the seekers to see targets on either side of the aircraft for lock on before launch. But if you can just look at a target and kick a BVR AAM onto it, with the missile locking on after launch, that removes a lot of need for separate missile types and dedicated bays.

ETA: as someone else noted in another thread, the F-22 side bays were originally to be AIM-120 sized to give an all BVR option. This requirement was relaxed for weight/volume reasons.



Another reason for probably why amca doesn't have side bays.

2 things here:
1> use of CCM or not.
2> SWB on medium jets like F-35, AMCA, etc or not.

1st some generic points:
- Sword vs Shield, Offence Vs Defence, Attack vs Countermeasure, both sides have developed.
- Layered defence of SAMs are developed - SR-SAM, MR-SAM, LR-SAM, VLR-SAM.
- Naval ships have variety of offence & defence.
- Soldiers carry machine gun + pistol. Sniper also carries something for close combat.
- Both sides desire their offensive weapons to defeat enemy & defensive countermeasures to stop enemy's weapons.

1> There have always been a debate on use of CCM.
- Earlier RF & IR AAMs needed some minimum strength/signal for detection & lock-on, it was LOBL mode.
- RF-IFF & IRST-ID were there for target/friendly distinction, but limited.
- With time, H/w & S/w improved a lot.
- Bcoz now LOAL mode is developed for BVR-AAM & CCM, hence they can be launched whatever way is desired, from central IWB or SWB, by HMDS or just w/o it also due to spherical sensor coverage & networked fusion.
- Earlier only F-22 & F-35 were true 5gen stealthy jets whom the 4gen enemy would detect very late at close ranges. By that time F-22/35 would have fired AIM-120 AMRAAM & enemy would get hit before detecting them. Hence they were confident of BVR-AAMs only. But F-22 being developed 1st had CCMs in case BVR-AAMs either miss or get depleted. "Prevention is better than cure".
- Today multiple nations have made their versios of RAS, RAM, LPI radar, etc & people can only guess their performance. Although USA is still leader, but others would also have considerable stealth.
- Bcoz BVR-AAM climbs up to increase range, there are maneuvering tactics to try to stay out of its NEZ & evade it. Dual-pulse AAMs are made to counter evasion tactics.
- EW have improved, but HoJ (Home on Jammer) technique also developed.
- Better EOTS/IRST are R&Ded for longer passive EO detection. Better IIR AAMs made.
- 6gen jets aim to have DEW-CIWS, means more BVR & WVR shots will be needed. It also means just like MBT's APS, a fighter jet wil also need spherical coverage of RF+EO sensors to detect, intercept incoming AAMs & SAMs.
- Smaller CCMs have been researched like MSDM(Miniature Self-Defense Missile), MHKM(Miniature Hit-to-Kill Missile), Martlet or the Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM), etc. If it is difficult to detect stealthy enemy at long ranges anyhow then at close ranges these CCMs + DEW-CIWS would be last line of defence.

So overall, as i said - offence & defence both improved, so it is still cat & mouse game. Hence IMO some type of CCM is still required, especially for those who will take decades to implement DEW-CIWS.
A movie dialogue "Chance favors the prepared mind". If i was a fighter pilot, i would prefer being prepared for every scenario & die if i've to after successfuly using my weapons, rather than being overconfident &/or help-less, wasting my life & tax payer's money on jet, bcoz DoD didn't make a proper survivable jet with sufficient weapons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2> SWB on medium jets like F-35, AMCA, etc.
- Su-75, 1-engine design, is showcased to have SWB. So it depends what example we project.
- For F-35 & AMCA, ATWR could be reason for not having SWB. 1x F135 engine is equivalent of 2xF414 engines. So if F-22 is reduced to medium size jet in ratio with 1xF135 or 2xF414 engines, while maintaining ATWR, then airframe volume & weight reduces to 50%, so the IWB capacity also reduces from 8 AAMs to 4 AAMs. But adding 2-4 AAMs weighing 80-90 Kg or 150-170 Kg doesn't impact ATWR of 20+/- tons gross weight jet in a destabilizing way, as i already showed calculation.
- But practicaly IMO that won't suffice due to points mentioned above.
- F-35 is getting 6 AAMs upgrade + ECU for more thrust & power, probably for DEW-CIWS. We don't know full details of JV engine for AMCA, 130+/- KN is being said.
- Bcoz NGAD & F/A-XX are being made, so no use modifying F-35 airframe. While AMCA is still in prototype parts metal cutting stage.
- China showcased folding-fin PL-15 BVR-AAM + SWB in its diagrams for J-31/35 for VSR-CCM. We've to wait & see if that would be true.
- Otherwise Su-57 style SWB out of wing root can also be made, if not from fuselage. The ultimate thing is to cover the CCM to hide its RCS, that's all.
- SWB can also be made MODULAR like F-15 CFTs. The Silent Eagle concept replaced same space with SWB for 2 BVR-AAMs. This wat AMCA won't need EDT (External Drop Tank).
- Bcoz 6gen aims to have DEW-CIWS + LOAL AAMs, means no ballistic CCIP aiming for gun-fight, means high agility & ATWR may not be required. So SWB should not be a problem, especially if AMCA is quoted to be 5.5gen jet. For some people 5.5gen means only MUMT & UCAVs will take care of everything.
- F-22's 6+2 AAMs = 1.1 tons, while AMCA is quoted with 1.5 tons IWB capacity mainly for A-G mode, but not willing to utilize for A-A mode.
- Last but not least, our DoD PSUs enjoys totalitarian monopoly w/o competition & have given evidence of decades of being late, over-optimistic, etc, it is difficult to expect something unique ON TIME. But let's be optimistic. Our ISRO doing well, we've variety of missiles, so let's hope that GTRE & ADA will also improve. 🤞
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#UPDATE | 4 Indian Vendors clears the Technical Evaluation for the 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 (𝗔𝗠𝗖𝗔).

The above vendors are : Infosys Limited, Tata Consultancy Services Limited, L&T Technology Services Limited, and Cyient Limited. These vendors will go for the next stages of the bidding process.


View: https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1918210350597677514?t=sNFWVHMgBTYYO8LmJSGp5w&s=19
 
#UPDATE | 4 Indian Vendors clears the Technical Evaluation for the 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 (𝗔𝗠𝗖𝗔).

The above vendors are : Infosys Limited, Tata Consultancy Services Limited, L&T Technology Services Limited, and Cyient Limited. These vendors will go for the next stages of the bidding process.


View: https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1918210350597677514?t=sNFWVHMgBTYYO8LmJSGp5w&s=19

Seems like ADA can't handle it alone, so private firm IT guys like me would have a big role to play.😎🤓
 
AMCA width 36'6" / length 57'9" / empty weight 12 tons / Internal fuel 6.5 tons.
F-18E/F width 44'8" / length 60'1" / empty weight 14.5 tons / Internal fuel 6.7 tons.
After seeing skinny 4gen F-18 SH with same 2x F414 engines & enjoying versatility of high loadout including EW pods, i decided to push AMCA's design potential as per its dimensions.

5gen design brings AAMs very close inside IWB in staggered order. The fins of AAMs were clipped.
6gen focuses on more capacity of everything & AMCA is being pitched as 5.5gen, so capacity should be increased IMO.

Bcoz AAMs already don't have 100% PK (Probability of Kill) & DEW-CIWS or DECM (Directed Energy Counter Measure), so the next step is to pack more AAMs in same space.
NOTE- After shooting BVR-AAMs the tactic is not to merge for dogfight like in movies, videogames, but make U-turn & continue to stayout of enemy's AAM's NEZ till all BVR-AAMs are depleted.

The PL-15 might be 1st medium range AAM with folding fin.


View attachment 30676


But with AMCA's 0.75m IWB depth, 135 degrees of folding is not required, just 45 degrees up/down would suffice. The launcher would punch out the AAMs straight, so the folded fins would be aerodynamically in line with separation trajectory, would take less time to unfold & start flying the AAM.
Astr AAM dia. is 178mm.
In the 2,200mm wide IWB, 2x4 or even 2x5 AAMs might fit tightly.
If the folding can be done within 180mm width then 5x180=900mm would be needed for 5 AAMs, leaving 200/6= 33mm gap b/w the AAMs & with IWB side walls.
A scaled notional diagram of 3/4/5 AAMs looks like following:

View attachment 30693

With 10x BVR-AAMs + 4 CCMs = 10x154 + 4x88 = 1,892 Kg, 1.892/(12+6.5+1.892)=9.3% of STOW (earlier 1.1 tons was 5.6%).
Wet T/STOW ratio = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+6.5+1.892) = 0.98 (earlier 1.02)
With 50% fuel used & firing 4 BVR-AAMs, with 2 CCMs & 2 BVR-AAMs left, wet TWR = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+3.25+1.892) = 1.16 (earlier 1.24)

Now comparing this new potential with F-18 looks like following:

View attachment 30860

It looks like may be AMCA airframe volume can be expanded some more.


While searching for F-18 SH's stealth pod, i found F-18 SH stealth derivative by some artist on Reddit site:
(
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/FighterJets/comments/2aqddg/stealth_hornet_is_this_the_future_of_the_fa18/)

BTW, this is 11 years ago
Unfortunately 2D views of this 3D art are not available.

1746185391666.webp

We also had a caret-intake model earlier & F-18 SH has such identical intakes.
So just for the sake of some similarity & 2xF414 engines, let's compare the F-18 SH upgrade proposed with CFT + stealth pod, with AMCA.
Otherwise 4gen vs 5gen doesn't compare, different components by different makers in different era.
The aerodynamics are also different.
This is just to see what the 2xF414 engines are pushing.
1746185441043.webp

F-18 SH empty weight = base + 2x CFT = 14.5 + 2x0.4 = 15.3 tons.
Internal fuel = 6.7 tons + 3.2 tons total in 2x CFTs = 9.9 tons.
AAMs tons = 4x AIM-120 + 2x AIM-9X = 2*(162+162+85)/1000 = 0.818 tons.

AMCA AAMs tons = 4x154 Kg Astr AAMs = 0.616 tons.

Wet TWR should be at least 1.1
Bcoz 196 KN wet thrust is 62.8% of F-22's, so to have same TWR, all the weights on average should be 62.8%. The empty, fuel, weapons, external load weights can vary but total STOW & MTOW should not exceed 62.8% ideally. But AMCA's AA-STOW is 19.116 tons (65.8%), AG-STOW is 20 tons (68.3%) & MTOW is 27 tons (71%) & that of F-18 SH is even more - 90%(4+2 AAMs) & 79% MTOW. For us not having engine options YET it is a desperate compelling situation, but USA's or any maker nation's domestic engines can have more thust than export versions, which could be kept classified.
Moreover, bcoz F-18 has perpendicular wing with higher drag & lift for carrier ops, but AMCA being AF jet has better swept wings,
hence F-18 can haul more weight, but AMCA would cruise much better, longer, farther.


Let's see approximate scaled comparison b/w AMCA's caret-intake model, DSI model & F-18 SH with CFT & EWP model.

1746185543800.webp

From top view, even in the F-18 non-CFT base model the forward fuselage is very skinny, the intakes start much back near LER, wing span more but area is less than AMCA, but still its empty & fuel weights are more.
From front view, AMCA appears more voluminous than non-CFT base model, but the CFT model looks little more voluminous. But the fuel weight difference is a lot - 6.5 Vs 9.9 (6.7+3.2) tons.

The EWP (External Weapons Pod) arranges 4x AAMs in 2 layers, 2x2 order. But for a brand new design, same 4 AAMs would be arranged linearly, like in AMCA or any steath jet.
 

Latest Replies

Featured Content

Trending Threads

Back
Top