AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Replying to your questions feel like solving a test paper...

Really? Which question exactly?

It's not accurate if you make shit up! Let "popular" guys label inaccurate bullshit as per their own wish, or add stuff like serrated engine-nozzle on that AMCA.

OMG, relax, why so angry? Forum is about time pass, info exchange, speculations, opinions. If we don't know something then let's say IDK, simple.
You wan't only yourself & Kuntal to be apreciated & other artists are making SHIT???
I just asked for labels, what's so tough about it like test paper? Here is my guess on your work after looking at diagrams of various jets:

Now tell us - is this simple speculated labelling to much to ask/discuss?

We've done fanarts like Tejas with Surya Kiran livery, but for serious models we did not deviate. That's why Kuntal is now getting official contracts from HAL

> Contract employment is nothing new, but this is something new that our DoD is hiring a youngster from outside on contract, just for some CAD rendering???? We have NAL+ADA+DRDO+ARDE+HAL, etc, etc. Is their team so small or busy that they can't advertise their product themselves???
> And if this is the case under contract with GoI/MoD/DoD, then Kuntal's work should bear logo or watermark of GoI/ADA/IAF, not his own.

why you more popular guys are not.

Bcoz guys like us are not popular as such, but experienced in our respective industries & the recruiters, trainers, managers for youngsters, taking their interviews. Many IT & other types of firms are in contract with DoD on various products. We could be part of them, working on different aspects.

Anyways, difference in Tejas versions are similar to F-18, bigger jet, new intakes & engine, larger wings etc.View attachment 18259

View attachment 18260Comparing for AMCA, this is how much F-16 has changed in 40years by blockwise development.

It's not about how much adavanced they are vis-a-vis each other, but how radical the design changes are.

+

> F/A-18E/F is not a variant of F/A-18A/B/C/D rather it's a complete different plane that was designed based on the clues form Hornet

> The reason it's was named F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and not something like "F-19 Wasp" was because DoD knew it would be tough to get money from civilian policymakers for a completely new fighter program so they presented it as "just a simple upgrade"

> F-16 block upgrades are more like plug-n-play systems that can be used on any variants with minimal deep modifications. The only serious airframe modification in the whole F-16 family is perhaps those Israeli ones with their "spine"

> He called Tejas Mk-2 radical because it's a complete different plane in comparison to its Mk-1 or Mk-1A variant. It's not an incremental upgrade...it's more like the Super Hornet we discussed earlier.

> AMCA variants (Mk-1, Mk-2) won't be as radical of a change as we're seeing in Tejas (Mk-1, Mk-2). It'll be incremental like may be new radars, engines, CATOBAR capability, auxiliary IWB....

I hope it makes some sense

> I got the analogy what you guys mean & agree that F-18 E/F has improved a lot after A/B/C/D models, that must have required extra R&D & money, & the same thing b/w Tejas Mk1/1A & Mk2,



but that's what i would expect b/w AMCA Mk1 & Mk2 when it is being projected as 5.5gen.

> By "noticeably better" i meant showcasing the already existing 5gen characteristics seen TODAY on F-22, F-35, Su-57, J-20. There's nothing radical about things seen TODAY to be implemented after 5-10yrs on AMCA.
> AMCA Mk2 is being quoted as 5.5gen. But nobody is clearly talking what'll be added to 5gen but not completely to be 6gen.

> We all know about corporate wars. Their naming system sometimes is confusing. YF-16 became F-16, YF-22 became F-22, X-35 became F-35 but YF-17 became F-18. So I don't take sides of foreign firms, but LM guys can also say that McDonnel Douglas-Northrop-Boeing team made such a skinny jet which is not "plug-n-play" & had to be redesigned. F-18 has been used for R&D like HARV but not implemented.
Lockheed Martin could have done the same inflating & change its engine inlet, nozzles, etc with F-16 :- The XL delta-wing model, LOAN nozzle, the MATV nozzle, the DSI intake, other AFTI/VISTA stuff (IRST, targeting pods, extra fins, etc). So LM's rivals can point at them. Only LM can tell us why it didn't implement any of those, perhaps to save money & invest after ATF & JSF.



BTW, the Mitshubishi F-2 is example of enlarged & customized F-16

Lastly, there is nothing to get angry & call other artists' works as bullshit. Everybody has right to showcase their talent & creativity. Everybody expects acceptation & appreciation, including me & you guys.

What's so difficult to understand here?

Inadequate plaint-text reply w/o diagrams & pics makes it difficult to understand.

 

[Bleh]

Here is my guess on your work after looking at diagrams of various jets:

These are probably all wrong tho... Why'd I do that?

And no offense but if someone's work is full of mistakes made out of guesswork, that can't be compared with 99% fidelity stuff. They use it because it's so accurate that is cheaper for them than rendering their own.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

These are probably all wrong tho... Why'd I do that?

PROBABLY or DEFINITELY? Could be right or wrong, that's what people discuss on chat forum. So you may do it for time pass.

 

[Ayan Barat]

First thing first; please stop using so many different font sizes, colours, emojis...someone with ADHD might go insane

I just asked for labels, what's so tough about it like test paper?

Now tell us - is this simple speculated labelling to much to ask/discuss?

Okay; let me ask you something else.
Why are you bothered so much about labelling something that we basically know nothing of? What exactly are we going to achieve even if our guesswork gets right about I don't know, the flares being on the starboard side?

Labelling something only makes sense when you know with cent percent surety about the thing you're labelling. If I label the new INS Tushil with what's onboard then it makes sense. What exactly would people benefit if I make a model of P18 and label it with whatever I think should be there?

Or you want people to look like absolute fools like when Alpha Defence labelled the aero-spike on VSHORAD as a "probe"?

that's what i would expect b/w AMCA Mk1 & Mk2 when it is being projected as 5.5gen

Read this, this is going to be more or less the only substantial upgrade between Mk-1 and Mk-2

Also there's nothing like a "0.5 Gen" it's just marketing gimmick. Genaration is decided by radical improvements like turbofan engines and stealth technologies, not incremental ones that are often cited as this 0.5 Gen

Their naming system sometimes is confusing. YF-16 became F-16, YF-22 became F-22, X-35 became F-35 but YF-17 became F-18.

What's confusing?
• YF-16 and YF-22 became F-16 and F-22 because because Y is the USAF prefix for "Prototype". So YF-16 means Prototype Fighter - No. 16.
Now why not use P for prototype? Because that's already taken up by Anti-Submarine warfare planes like P-3 and P-8. So naming it PF-16 would have meant a dedicated ASuW plane that's also a fighter - No. 16
• X-35 became X-35 because X is the prefix for "Experimental". And why not use "Ex" for Experimental? Because then you'd look like a fool calling a plane Ex-35.
• YF-17 never became F-18, it was scrapped.
"McDonnell Douglas Model 267" became F/A-18 that's why they use different names

So I don't take sides of foreign firms, but LM guys can also say that McDonnel Douglas-Northrop-Boeing team made such a skinny jet which is not "plug-n-play" & had to be redesigned. F-18 has been used for R&D like HARV but not implemented.
Lockheed Martin could have done the same inflating & change its engine inlet, nozzles, etc with F-16 :- The XL delta-wing model, LOAN nozzle, the MATV nozzle, the DSI intake, other AFTI/VISTA stuff (IRST, targeting pods, extra fins, etc). So LM's rivals can point at them. Only LM can tell us why it didn't implement any of those, perhaps to save money & invest after ATF & JSF.

So much words and yet I can't make much sense

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

And no offense but if someone work full of mistakes made it of guesswork that can compare with 99% fidelity stuff. They use it because it's so accurate that is cheaper for them than rendering their own.

I didn't get your sentences perfectly but i guess you are offended by me editing other's CAD for discussing as i'm unable to produce my own CAD. Is it so? If that is the case then you failed to understand even after mentioning that everybody seeks acceptation, appreciation, including the CAD artists. They want the world to talk about their work, except you perhaps. So basically you're speaking against artists like Kuntal.
And i said before also that my old laptop is not compatible with S/w like Blender, i would need to invest 1-1.5 lakh Rs for 6GB GPU laptop just for time pass.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

First thing first; please stop using so many different font sizes, colours, emojis...someone with ADHD might go insane

Not my problem. This websites gives those features to emphasize/highlight on something, emojis are for fun loving people abolishing which might also make some people go insane. Please talk to website owner to remove them.

Okay; let me ask you something else.
Why are you bothered so much about labelling

Since childhood in Indian schools we all have learned the importance of well labelled diagram & even getting marks based on that. Are you NRI in Iceland? Moreover, "a picture is worth a 1000 words".

something that we basically know nothing of?

Impossible. Don't talk like this. Even after seeing impulsive misbehavior, slang language, etc of certain members i can appreciate if they have good knowledge. But such members find it hard to accept other opinions.

What exactly are we going to achieve even if our guesswork gets right about I don't know, the flares being on the starboard side?

How many times i've to tell? Guessing is the whole idea of casual chat forum. Online or F2F, why do we chat?

Labelling something only makes sense when you know with cent percent surety about the thing you're labelling. If I label the new INS Tushil with what's onboard then it makes sense. What exactly would people benefit if I make a model of P18 and label it with whatever I think should be there?

Whenever a new weapon system is developed for army, navy, airforce, the entire world starts speculating on websites, Youtube, FB, Insta, Twitter, etc, etc. You never observed this? You never went to other forums?

Or you want people to look like absolute fools like when Alpha Defence labelled the aero-spike on VSHORAD as a "probe"?

> There're many YT channels. I don't follow any channel stricty, watch all their videos or favor them. I don't belong to their team.
> Just bcoz i'm IT engineer & following aviation & military since 30 years now, i don't expect everybody to be tech-savvy, hence i use pics, diagrams, calculations. I've always said i'm a low IQ guy, hence i expect the same multi-media reply from others.

Read this, this is going to be more or less the only substantial upgrade between Mk-1 and Mk-2
View attachment 18285

So every citizen is not satisfied by progress of our defence. Tax payers have the right to know & question how their tax is used. And like i said before:

Everybody knows that a regular citizen can't take it up to ADA, DRDO, HAL, etc. Public can challenge a govt. decision online & offline in various ways, but there are rarely any talk show where qualified techies are challenging DoD products precisely. At most people criticie the delays, scams, cost, etc, that too politically rather than technically.

But some members try to echo GoI/MoD/DoD & try to take the public focus off their mistakes. May be such members or their family, friend, relative are part of GoI/MoD/DoD.

Also there's nothing like a "0.5 Gen" it's just marketing gimmick. Genaration is decided by radical improvements like turbofan engines and stealth technologies, not incremental ones that are often cited as this 0.5 Gen

I agree, i also find saying 4.5/5.5gen funny but that's the trend everywhere.

What's confusing?
• YF-16 and YF-22 became F-16 and F-22 because because Y is the USAF prefix for "Prototype". So YF-16 means Prototype Fighter - No. 16.
Now why not use P for prototype? Because that's already taken up by Anti-Submarine warfare planes like P-3 and P-8. So naming it PF-16 would have meant a dedicated ASuW plane that's also a fighter - No. 16
• X-35 became X-35 because X is the prefix for "Experimental". And why not use "Ex" for Experimental? Because then you'd look like a fool calling a plane Ex-35.
• YF-17 never became F-18, it was scrapped.
"McDonnell Douglas Model 267" became F/A-18 that's why they use different names

Since my school days in 1990s i watched documentaries on Discovery Channel, NatGeo, History Channel, then on Youtube sine 2000s. I know what X, Y & other alphabets mean in USAF. But it is natural for enthusiasts to wonder about the irregularity of the number designations. After 23 they jumped straight to 35. After B-2 they jumped to 21.

So much words and yet I can't make much sense

You seem to be knowledgeable & make a lot of sense but also impulsive. Opinions on national projects & their progress can still differ.

 

[BON PLAN]

Spoiler: 🙂

View attachment 18271

The assembly line will officialy reach a 3 Rafale/month x 11 month a year rate in 2025.
This week the Safran ceo sait that the engine line is already on a 6/month rate, and is ready in a near future for a 8/month...

 

[BON PLAN]

I know increasing production is not as simple as Dassault building another assembly line. But all the sub-components like that Thales EO systems and all that have to be increased production. Not only that there is also sub-components of sub-components themselves as I assume all those optics are not made by Thales themselves but some optics company.

You are right.
The assembly line is the end of a whole process.
Some parts have a very long lead time, such as undercarriage (3 years !). So the rate targeted in 2025 was decided 3 years ago.
I know a Dassault purchaser, and he said me that all the purchasing office struggle to increase the rate because all the supliers are full, specially with Airbus orders.

 

[BON PLAN]

They have a strike every Tuesday in France. We need licensed production here. Dassault is swamped with orders already because we wasted 3 years dilly dallying.

You may spoke of the railway company (SNCF), but not of all the french companies.
So it's factually false my dear.

 

[BON PLAN]

Really? Which question exactly?

OMG, relax, why so angry? Forum is about time pass, info exchange, speculations, opinions. If we don't know something then let's say IDK, simple.
You wan't only yourself & Kuntal to be apreciated & other artists are making SHIT???
I just asked for labels, what's so tough about it like test paper? Here is my guess on your work after looking at diagrams of various jets:
View attachment 18282
Now tell us - is this simple speculated labelling to much to ask/discuss?


> Contract employment is nothing new, but this is something new that our DoD is hiring a youngster from outside on contract, just for some CAD rendering???? We have NAL+ADA+DRDO+ARDE+HAL, etc, etc. Is their team so small or busy that they can't advertise their product themselves???
> And if this is the case under contract with GoI/MoD/DoD, then Kuntal's work should bear logo or watermark of GoI/ADA/IAF, not his own.


Bcoz guys like us are not popular as such, but experienced in our respective industries & the recruiters, trainers, managers for youngsters, taking their interviews. Many IT & other types of firms are in contract with DoD on various products. We could be part of them, working on different aspects.


+


> I got the analogy what you guys mean & agree that F-18 E/F has improved a lot after A/B/C/D models, that must have required extra R&D & money, & the same thing b/w Tejas Mk1/1A & Mk2,
View attachment 18267
View attachment 18268

but that's what i would expect b/w AMCA Mk1 & Mk2 when it is being projected as 5.5gen.


> We all know about corporate wars. Their naming system sometimes is confusing. YF-16 became F-16, YF-22 became F-22, X-35 became F-35 but YF-17 became F-18. So I don't take sides of foreign firms, but LM guys can also say that McDonnel Douglas-Northrop-Boeing team made such a skinny jet which is not "plug-n-play" & had to be redesigned. F-18 has been used for R&D like HARV but not implemented.
Lockheed Martin could have done the same inflating & change its engine inlet, nozzles, etc with F-16 :- The XL delta-wing model, LOAN nozzle, the MATV nozzle, the DSI intake, other AFTI/VISTA stuff (IRST, targeting pods, extra fins, etc). So LM's rivals can point at them. Only LM can tell us why it didn't implement any of those, perhaps to save money & invest after ATF & JSF.

View attachment 18265

BTW, the Mitshubishi F-2 is example of enlarged & customized F-16
View attachment 18264
Lastly, there is nothing to get angry & call other artists' works as bullshit. Everybody has right to showcase their talent & creativity. Everybody expects acceptation & appreciation, including me & you guys.


Inadequate plaint-text reply w/o diagrams & pics makes it difficult to understand.

The F2 is marginally bigger than legacy F16. And is it so potent? we don't know. The Japanese only built a limited number.
SH 18 is another kind of homothety.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

The F2 is marginally bigger than legacy F16. And is it so potent? we don't know. The Japanese only built a limited number.
SH 18 is another kind of homothety.

> I request to not deep dive about rest of the world jets on AMCA thread.
> I got the difference with F-18 which they wanted to explain but LM also could have done that with F-16 if the situatiion called for it. So the F-2 is just an example of such situation. But LM won both the ATF & JSF competitions. Present day it has 3 jets, 2 of which are 5gen & started multi-billion US$ upgrades. So it was clear from beginning how much MLU would be done on F-16.
> I raised 2 concerns:

- Most of our CAD artists don't showcase their independent ideas which others around the world are doing. Some do try to go beyond what ADA/IAF has showcased, but currenty none are part of forums where we can discuss with them to improve their CAD.​

And IDK why some members are anti-CAD for discussion What are their expectation on a chat forum?​

- AMCA & all other jets actually should progress with global standards wherever possible, It can't be a 6gen jet obviously but its Mk2 is being projectd as 5.5gen. So there should noticeable differences. But some members don't wan't that also ​

Difference of opinions are fine but rather than stopping others, we all should focus on contributing on our best to the topic of any thread. Our country is lagging since 1947 bcoz we stop eachother from not just doing but thinking & talking also.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

There is a perpendicular bottom view VAD available for Astr-1 in IWB of AMCA


And there is one for Meteor or Astr-3 SFDR but angled, not clear.


If someone has a perpendicular bottom view for Astr-2 or Meteor/Astr-3 SFDR then kindly share, thanks.