AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Corvus Splendens]

I said to use it for R&D of our new future jet, like AHCA or bomber, etc.

How are you going to use it for R&D in any feasible capacity when you are not even allowed to look inside or tinker with it ?

 

[Ayan Barat]

The biggest REALISTIC problem with F-35s would be the integration of local subsystems and availability of spares.

One of the easiest thing, from a technological point of view is weapon integration on a fighter. On a broader scale you just need a connection for power and a data transfer bus for uploading basic target data; the way Ukrainian are using advanced NATO weapons on Soviet platforms is a good example.

And yet we see disproportional number of non-US weapons type certified for F-35s despite being from allies and even NATO countries; with the only reason being reluctance to allow it. So how can anyone even imagine that they'll let us tinker with subsystems?

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

How are you going to use it for R&D in any feasible capacity when you are not even allowed to look inside or tinker with it ?

Just like Turkey was given F110 engine for Kaan. IDK if they dissected F110.
Tinkering is generic word, exactly what?
We have to mount the engine, connect it to fuel, electric, electronic lines, PTO shaft. Whats so tinkering in this? There's nothing secret about this.

 

[Nutcracker]

Just like Turkey was given F110 engine for Kaan. IDK if they dissected F110.
Tinkering is generic word, exactly what?
We have to mount the engine, connect it to fuel, electric, electronic lines, PTO shaft. Whats so tinkering in this? There's nothing secret about this.

What R&D are you going to achieve by that ? R&D is very generic word here too.

Post in thread 'AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft'

Wednesday at 12:27 PM

getting our hands on top of the line Pratt & Whitney engine tot.

Buddy, what did i say?

If F135 engine is given w/o ToT also then it can be used for R&D of new jets design.

• Bhartiya Sainik

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

What R&D are you going to achieve by that ? R&D is very generic word here too.

Buddy, what did i say?
1st time:

R&D of new jets design.

2nd & 3rd time to Corvus

R&D of our new future jet, like AHCA or bomber, etc.

& now 4th time to you. After highlighting my response having the answer also, again you are asking.

 

[Nutcracker]

Buddy, what did i say?
1st time:

2nd & 3rd time to Corvus


& now 4th time to you. After highlighting my response having the answer also, again you are asking.

Just sticking wires into engine won't get you any R&D worthy data. If you think it's possible then give examples of something which can be achieved by doing that though.

 

[randombully]

Oh you think the Americans will let you reverse engineer their golden goose ? Forget tinkering around with it, they'll post personnel to make sure we don't look inside. We've had the AL-31 with zero Russkie oversight for decades and we didn't even reverse engineer that, and you think we'll learn anything worthwhile from a F135 when the Americans won't even let us dissect one ?

We already have surpassed al31 engine.
It's a late 3rd gen engine.
Dry Kaveri performance is in category of early 4th gen engines.

 

[randombully]

It didn't give such to its most obedient vassal as offset clause but here you are deluding yourself in such.

Again EOTS and DAS are not that hard to develop relative to other techs in 5th gen fighters
We already have strong base to develop them overselves.

 

[randombully]

Just like Turkey was given F110 engine for Kaan. IDK if they dissected F110.
Tinkering is generic word, exactly what?
We have to mount the engine, connect it to fuel, electric, electronic lines, PTO shaft. Whats so tinkering in this? There's nothing secret about this.

F110 is a 4th gen engine, it's not that latest 5+ gen engine like f135 of f35.
And It's not just about reverse engineering the engine itself it you need tools and machines to make that part, you need entire ecosystem and experience to produce these machines.
For example a gtre scientist Said in interview, in Kaveri we used circular holes in crystal blades, US and Europe have tech to make oblique holes in them which are much better.

We Don't have that tech and machines and experience and knowledge to make oblique holes.

Just having engines doesn't allow you to fully reverse engineer them.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Just sticking wires into engine won't get you any R&D worthy data. If you think it's possible then give examples of something which can be achieved by doing that though.

IDK what data you're talking about.
I'm talking about just connecting an engine with a new airframe.
A jet will be designed with certain dry/wet TWR & then suitable engine 1 or 2 wil be chosen.
If we have existing domestic suitable engine, use it.
Otherwise use imported engine.
Otherwise look for JV but wait 10yrs at least.
Otherwise sit like duck, keep day dreaming & end up importing entire aircraft.
1x F404 for LCA
1x F414 for MWF
2x F414 for AMCA, TEDBF
Some people are talking about ditching F414 & using M-88.
Our engine JV intends to cater to all above jets & hopefully some new future projects.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

F110 is a 4th gen engine, it's not that latest 5+ gen engine like f135 of f35.
And It's not just about reverse engineering the engine itself it you need tools and machines to make that part, you need entire ecosystem and experience to produce these machines.
For example a gtre scientist Said in interview, in Kaveri we used circular holes in crystal blades, US and Europe have tech to make oblique holes in them which are much better.

We Don't have that tech and machines and experience and knowledge to make oblique holes.

Just having engines doesn't allow you to fully reverse engineer them.

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.

Where i said to reverse-engineer F-135 engine?

 

[Ultraman]

guessing u guys have seen this. article by former army chief.

India has to choose between Russia’s Su-57 & US F-35 aircraft. IAF must get the last word

Made-in-India fifth-generation fighter will take forever to make. India can't stop defence imports.

theprint.in

"Made-in-India fifth-generation fighter will take forever to make. India can't stop defence "

hal should have done a quick assembly and roll out of a nanga prototype like the turkish kaan

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

guessing u guys have seen this. article by former army chief.

India has to choose between Russia’s Su-57 & US F-35 aircraft. IAF must get the last word

Made-in-India fifth-generation fighter will take forever to make. India can't stop defence imports.

theprint.in

"Made-in-India fifth-generation fighter will take forever to make. India can't stop defence "

hal should have done a quick assembly and roll out of a nanga prototype like the turkish kaan

Hum honge kamiyaab... ek din.. ho ho man me hai vishvaas.. poora hai vishvaas...

 

[Spitfire IX]

1x F404 for LCA
1x F414 for MWF
2x F414 for AMCA, TEDBF
Some people are talking about ditching F414 & using M-88.

M-88 produces insufficient thrust to power any of those types.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

M-88 produces insufficient thrust to power any of those types.

I didn't raise/suggest that point of using it, but the point in that is to avoid arm-twisting by USA.

 

[randombully]

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.

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).

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

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).

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.

 

[randombully]

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.

Hence engine TWR is just a number to guess & compare engines for non-professionals.

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.

 

[Spitfire IX]

I didn't raise/suggest that point of using it, but the point in that is to avoid arm-twisting by USA.

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.

 

[vampyrbladez]

Baba jaane sabki Man Ki Baat


View: https://x.com/RealBababanaras/status/1892108261597356222