AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Spitfire IX]

View: https://x.com/idrwalerts/status/1874676270405124473

is high altitude means , that type of environment created ?

Bravo! Starting to build the infrastructure required to design and build fighters. Wind tunnels and FTB's next, please.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

You got your basics all mixed up

Longitudinal/bigger IWB ≠ heavier fighter

F22 is bigger and has a higher thrust than f35 but still carry smaller/lighter payload plus f22 and has a smaller combat radius than f35

Russia is in a hard place economically and we should leverage their know how in aerodynamic control to redesign AMCA mk2

Current AMCA mk1 should go on as it is with GE f414 but AMCA mk2 should be a new/improved beast.

To loose some weight we should drop TVC requirement and also get rid of elavators. Move the engines apart and voila
View attachment 20447

> The thing about basics is that ther is no global ideal formula for designing fighter jet, like what % weight of engines, fuel, equipment, payload & what shape, size. So very difficult to compare jets bluntly like F-22 Vs F-35 Vs YF-23, etc, especially if made by different companies.
> We should learn from entire world, all the jets, but we should understand +\- points of something 1st.
> Mk1, Mk2, Mk3... of every jet wil come with improvements, but IMO we have to push certain improvements before time wherever possible.
> F414 deal may not allow DRDO to attach their TVC nozzle. But speaking in general, every feature has some additional weight & benefit. Just imagine F-22, Su-35, Su-30MKI, Su-57 w/o TVC, that's what AMCA will be like w.r.t. agility. As long as 4gen jets are there, gunfight will be there. TVC gives advantage in both CCM dogfight & gunnfight. either save weight/money or save pilot & jet.
> Agreed, tandem bay doesn't always mean heavier jet. But it seems you desire tandem bay for longer weapons like ARMs, AShMs, CrMs, right? And i told you with example that some can be custom designed for AMCA. AMCA IWB is 4.2m long & Su-57 IWB is 4.4m long, just 0.2m difference. Now tell us what more expectations you have from such tandem IWB.

I was expecting some edited pic or diagram from you, but leet me share mine on what you say about separating engines & tandem bays. The red & orange lines are options to expand the side walls of fuselage. I would expect at east 20-25% increase in weight.
> Rather than a V-tail, perhaps just the horizontal stab can remain, rudder removed.



So now it looks identical to Su-57 & a modified model which i used for national AHCA.

 

[Asmodeus]

Bravo! Starting to build the infrastructure required to design and build fighters. Wind tunnels and FTB's next, please.

Probable source :
View: https://x.com/alpha_defense/status/1873721404191125651
IDRW news should be taken with sack of salt..

 

[DancingPeacock]

Is this a new /renewed request ? Any other source for the news ?

idrw has a habit of pulling news out of arse.

 

[pipebomb]

> The thing about basics is that ther is no global ideal formula for designing fighter jet, like what % weight of engines, fuel, equipment, payload & what shape, size. So very difficult to compare jets bluntly like F-22 Vs F-35 Vs YF-23, etc, especially if made by different companies.
> We should learn from entire world, all the jets, but we should understand +\- points of something 1st.
> Mk1, Mk2, Mk3... of every jet wil come with improvements, but IMO we have to push certain improvements before time wherever possible.
> F414 deal may not allow DRDO to attach their TVC nozzle. But speaking in general, every feature has some additional weight & benefit. Just imagine F-22, Su-35, Su-30MKI, Su-57 w/o TVC, that's what AMCA will be like w.r.t. agility. As long as 4gen jets are there, gunfight will be there. TVC gives advantage in both CCM dogfight & gunnfight. either save weight/money or save pilot & jet.
> Agreed, tandem bay doesn't always mean heavier jet. But it seems you desire tandem bay for longer weapons like ARMs, AShMs, CrMs, right? And i told you with example that some can be custom designed for AMCA. AMCA IWB is 4.2m long & Su-57 IWB is 4.4m long, just 0.2m difference. Now tell us what more expectations you have from such tandem IWB

-Yf23 & f22 pic is only there for illustration

- I can't buy into the idea of strategic class weapons will ever be able to fit in a 4.4m IWB of AMCA or to that matter in su57. I will believe it when I see it

- su57 is not handicapped in anyway. They can fix/modify that split bay tomorrow if they want to. AMCA in its current configuration doesn't have that option

Now on further scrutiny it would be foolish to redesign AMCA just because something is better than nothing. So I was wrong on this

However we should definitely design another aircraft based on the technologies developed for AMCA like radars,110kn engines and other sub systems.

This 2nd aircraft will have more lifting capacity at the cost of less aerodynamic asymmetry, hence more stable

 

[Spitfire IX]

Now on further scrutiny it would be foolish to redesign AMCA just because something is better than nothing.

I agree. IAF needs fighters. Dreams of future fighters do not meet that need.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

-Yf23 & f22 pic is only there for illustration

- I can't buy into the idea of strategic class weapons will ever be able to fit in a 4.4m IWB of AMCA or to that matter in su57. I will believe it when I see it

- su57 is not handicapped in anyway. They can fix/modify that split bay tomorrow if they want to. AMCA in its current configuration doesn't have that option

Now on further scrutiny it would be foolish to redesign AMCA just because something is better than nothing. So I was wrong on this

However we should definitely design another aircraft based on the technologies developed for AMCA like radars,110kn engines and other sub systems.

This 2nd aircraft will have more lifting capacity at the cost of less aerodynamic asymmetry, hence more stable

Every member should do their own homework based on their ideas, like basic pic-editing & see what weapon can fit into a jet or not. May be they'll get their answers before only. Or afterwards they can showcase their ideas in appropriate thread with edited pics, diagrams, calculations.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Now on further scrutiny it would be foolish to redesign AMCA just because something is better than nothing. So I was wrong on this

I agree. IAF needs fighters. Dreams of future fighters do not meet that need.

> It depends on what re-design people talk about & if it can be done in time properly.
So far only 1 redesign has been discussed - tandem IWB, which some of us already said it'll be a new jet altogether & it is shown.
> There are many features which will come as part of MLU. We may have to fast-track some of them.
> IAF needing fighters now will apparently be fulfilled by LCA, MWF but after 2-3 decades AMCA will be LONE 5gen jet when globally 4gen jets will retire. Then some people will start dreaming about future jet & the vicious circle of procrastination, ignorance, arrogance, panic, import will continue.

 

[pipebomb]

Every member should do their own homework based on their ideas, like basic pic-editing & see what weapon can fit into a jet or not. May be they'll get their answers before only. Or afterwards they can showcase their ideas in appropriate thread with edited pics, diagrams, calculations.

Respectfully DISAGREE

"Homework" ??
This isn't a exam or presentation. A forum will only flourish with open exchange of ideas/thoughts. We shouldn't be discouraging it

Multimedia doesn't add anything of value if you're not permitted to speak your mind.

With already posting behind a pseudo name, I don't have a big enough ego to second guess my post about how someone might perceive it. Hopefully my posts have been useful to someone. And even if it isn't. That's fine too. I will continue to scribble what's come to my mind.

If my post are off topic or break forum rules. Mods can remove it

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Respectfully DISAGREE

"Homework" ??
This isn't a exam or presentation. A forum will only flourish with open exchange of ideas/thoughts. We shouldn't be discouraging it

Multimedia doesn't add anything of value if you're not permitted to speak your mind.

With already posting behind a pseudo name, I don't have a big enough ego to second guess my post about how someone might perceive it. Hopefully my posts have been useful to someone. And even if it isn't. That's fine too. I will continue to scribble what's come to my mind.

If my post are off topic or break forum rules. Mods can remove it

Here we go again, you're another member who repeatedly misunderstands replies when someone is supporting or helping you.
- You had an idea of tandem IWBs,
- we told you it'll become new jet,
- but you still said it is no big deal,
- so i did a small homework & showed you,
- then you said it is not worth modifying AMCA.

So there's nothing to agree/disagree on doing homework & make a little edit in MS Paint.
It took me just 10mins to edit AMCA as per YOUR IDEA OF TANDEM IWB, which you could have done.

Who's stopping you? You 1st you speak/write what's in your mind then draw it, or edit a pic/diagram if you have time.

If you don't still it is ok.

But if you did a little sketch or edit work then you could have saved your own time. I hope you understand now, not misunderstand

 

[pipebomb]

- You had an idea of tandem IWBs,
- we told you it'll become new jet,
- but you still said it is no big deal,
- so i did a small homework & showed you,
- then you said it is not worth modifying AMCA

- it's not my idea but quite apparent to anyone how constraining that IWB is. I can't take credit for it, sorry

- yes you did

- I still think it's moderatly 'big deal' but can be accomplished if IAF agrees to it and GOI release funds for it

- which didn't make a lot of sense to me

- that's because I realized that IAF/ GOI is already sold on AMCA mk2 and redesigning it might just derail the whole thing.
"A bird in hand worth two in bush"

 

[Bleh]

Guys I wanted to ask, what has been the usual engine development cycle worldwide? From 404 to M88 to EJ200

Compare with the Chinos who started WS-10 development in mid-90s.

 

[Ayan Barat]

Guys I wanted to ask, what has been the usual engine development cycle worldwide? From 404 to M88 to EJ200

If you're asking this for Kaveri then the comparison will never be fair for us. The reason being...

• Before F404, General Electrics had made some 15 or so different turbojet and turbofan engines. With most of them being not just a mere "product" but significant milestone in aviation like CF6 that powers everything from Airbus 300 to Boeing 747 to even military C-5M Galaxy. Or J79; that powered Phantoms, Hustlers, Vigilantes and Starfighters among other things...more than 17,000 J79s were produced by GE.

• Similarly M88 was SNECMA's third in-house project with prior two; the Atar and M53 being extremely successful. Just for an idea, almost 15 different platforms flew with the Atar engine. As for M53, it's the same engine that powers all the Mirage 2000s and F1...a combined total of some 1,500 aircrafts.

• On paper EJ200 may feel like something that Eurojet managed to pull in its first try but in reality it's just the first engine from Eurojet Consortium, not the first jet from individual members of this consortium. Rolls-Royce was once the global pioneer of aero-engines and MTU Aero had already produced multiple engines on ToT before.

In tech world, if you're genuinely designing something instead of just copying then the first iteration is always difficult to master. But once done then subsequent developments take lesser and lesser time to achieve and also the technology gets more and more refined with each iteration.

Obviously we have exceptions to this like a certain missile manufacturer who's somehow stuck on a technological plateau since the last 25 years but generally the above mentioned thing is kind of a rule of thumb for everything from a smartphone to a nuclear submarine.

 

[AbRaj]

You think redesigning AMCA is not practical because of extra few hundred crores

But IAF operating a 2nd 5th gen fighter side by side to AMCA with totally new engines other than the 110kn ones we are planning on building, is perfectly tenable ?

These guys are deceiving you. Its very easy to redesign chAMCA. Even you can do it. All it needs is a paper, pencil and eraser

 

[AbRaj]

"Homework" ??
This isn't a exam or presentation. exchange of ideas/thoughts.
Multimedia doesn't add anything of value speak your mind.

I will continue to scribble what's come to my mind.

 

[pipebomb]

If you're asking this for Kaveri then the comparison will never be fair for us. The reason being...

• Before F404, General Electrics had made some 15 or so different turbojet and turbofan engines. With most of them being not just a mere "product" but significant milestone in aviation like CF6 that powers everything from Airbus 300 to Boeing 747 to even military C-5M Galaxy. Or J79; that powered Phantoms, Hustlers, Vigilantes and Starfighters among other things...more than 17,000 J79s were produced by GE.

• Similarly M88 was SNECMA's third in-house project with prior two; the Atar and M53 being extremely successful. Just for an idea, almost 15 different platforms flew with the Atar engine. As for M53, it's the same engine that powers all the Mirage 2000s and F1...a combined total of some 1,500 aircrafts.

• On paper EJ200 may feel like something that Eurojet managed to pull in its first try but in reality it's just the first engine from Eurojet Consortium, not the first jet from individual members of this consortium. Rolls-Royce was once the global pioneer of aero-engines and MTU Aero had already produced multiple engines on ToT before.

In tech world, if you're genuinely designing something instead of just copying then the first iteration is always difficult to master. But once done then subsequent developments take lesser and lesser time to achieve and also the technology gets more and more refined with each iteration.

Obviously we have exceptions to this like a certain missile manufacturer who's somehow stuck on a technological plateau since the last 25 years but generally the above mentioned thing is kind of a rule of thumb for everything from a smartphone to a nuclear submarine.

It seems to me we are currently at XF5 stage. X2 took flight in 2016. So the next step for us is kaveri integration on LCA and inflight testing. Only then we could progress to XF9 stage i.e our 110kn engine

 

[DancingPeacock]

It seems to me we are currently at XF5 stage. X2 took flight in 2016. So the next step for us is kaveri integration on LCA and inflight testing. Only then we could progress to XF9 stage i.e our 110kn engine

You got it wrong. We aren't at that stage either. XF9 is some F119 level shit=too high tech despite being smaller than F119. Japanese obviously are c*ckblocked by big biradher into not doing further obviously add on to their pacifist ideals they are slow. Otherwise the Japanese already would had flown VCE by now.

People are confusing always. 110-KN engine means(Wet), its dry would be some 75kN. Whereas XF-9 Dry alone is some 110kN and wet being some 150kN.

 

[Ayan Barat]

It seems to me we are currently at XF5 stage. X2 took flight in 2016.

We're currently at the FO stage. We FA too much with our lax attitude and incompetency so it's now time to just sit back and enjoy the FO.

Before Kaveri only two engines were designed in-house by HAL.
• HJE-2500; a 265kg turbojet producing 11.1kN of thrust
• PTAE-7; an 84kg turbojet producing 3.73kN of thrust
And from these, we're now striving to design a 1,200kg, turbofan engine with 80kN of thrust. This is something bit too much to term an iterative development.

But remember this?

exceptions to this

The problem starts when to consider the fact that HJE-2500 is from 60s. If anyone else had achieved this feat some 50 years ago then in present time they would have been churning out EJ200 levels of technology. But as always, we've multiple excuses for this ranging from lobbying by foreign firms to changing government to military not being interested to funds...but end of day it's simply a matter of us failing as a nation.

 

[pipebomb]

And from these, we're now striving to design a 1,200kg, turbofan engine with 80kN of thrust. This is something bit too much to term an iterative development.

I understand the emotions but you have to play the cards you're dealt. Next step is certainly flying kaveri on lca and certifying it. Doesn't matter if it's 100kg overweight or 200kg. There's no shortcut

 

[pipebomb]

You got it wrong. We aren't at that stage either. XF9 is some F119 level shit=too high tech despite being smaller than F119. Japanese obviously are c*ckblocked by big biradher into not doing further obviously add on to their pacifist ideals they are slow. Otherwise the Japanese already would had flown VCE by now.

People are confusing always. 110-KN engine means(Wet), its dry would be some 75kN. Whereas XF-9 Dry alone is some 110kN and wet being some 150kN.

I know the dry thrust. 75/110 ≈ 113/164. So conceptually our GTRE110 is a f119 contemporary