AMCA Project heading LCA Direction??

[Speeder 2]

ladies and gentlemen, we now officially have the "LCA" of the 21st century

 

[Nisha]

I hope AMCA developers and PAK FA Developers are taking notes on what the US has in mind in its next gen Futuristic fighter. I think there was an article on it on Popular Science and it mentioned the aircraft will have no tail wings.

 

[sancho]

I hope AMCA developers and PAK FA Developers are taking notes on what the US has in mind in its next gen Futuristic fighter. I think there was an article on it on Popular Science and it mentioned the aircraft will have no tail wings.

A propper 5th gen fighter is out of their reach currently, so we shouldn't even more only because other much more capable industries are going for it now.

 

[sancho]

ADA design development of AMCA

 

[S-DUCT]

@sancho: Sir(if you don't mind),if you have given a choice to select final AMCA model (between 4& 5) which design will you choose & why?

 

[Anony]

hope AMCA doesn't get delayed

depends if DRDO can deliver fifth gen engine on time. (I mean in consultation to foreign vendor.)

 

[Dillinger]

ADA design development of AMCA

Sir, had mentioned you in a post, was looking forward to your reply to it here.

From the above picture, even an amateur eye can make out that what was envisioned as an article incorporating certain 5th gen elements has been converted into a project aiming at proper VLO. Not even LO but VLO. While the above model is not rich in details nor particularly high quality it clearly shows a very complex edge alignment, chining and disciplined shaping but that's just the surface when it comes to VLO. Hell even the aft and lower fuselage has been shaped for LO.

Once such a "VLO" airframe is up and running, how will the DRDO/ADA provide for extensive robotic surface coating treatment or appliqué laminate tech, VLO/LO rated antennas, radome with incorporated frequency selective multilayer laminate tech, etc.? Even at best we'll just end up with a shell with 4th gen LRUs, no proper engine or AESA radar. What are these fellows smoking?

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...ject-heading-lca-direction.html#ixzz2QXqmRdQg

 

[sancho]

Sir, had mentioned you in a post, was looking forward to your reply to it here.

@sancho: Sir(if you don't mind),if you have given a choice to select final AMCA model (between 4& 5) which design will you choose & why?

First of all guys, Sancho is enough.

Dillinger, I know but I guessed S-Duct has already answered it. Imo we might be able to offer more on the material and coating side for a 5th gen fighter, than we can do at the design side. For every simple forumer like us, it is obvious that a stealth fighter must have angled surfaces and designing a fighter like that is not that difficult, however finding a design that is not only vlo, but also aerodynamical and offers good flight performance is something different. By the record of drag and overweight issues we have with our indigenous aircraft programs with conventional designs, I don't see how we can overcome this at such an advanced design.
The engine is of course another core issue, but just like it should have been done in LCA, we don't need an indigenous engine necessarily for our AMCA in general, or at least for the prototypes and early production versions. Even the T50 and the early Pak Fa versions, will use an available and proven engine, while the NG newly developed engine will come later only, so why do we without any know how in the engine field always want an indigenous engine for our fighter? Because we see it as a matter of pride and that is one of the main problem in most of our own developments anyway and as long we can't get over it, we won't get such development done the right way!


S-DUCT, to be honest none of them, because I am not an aero engineer and don't have deep know how about stealth design and like any forumer I want to see something new and innovative in any new fighter, that we have not seen in reality so far.
So I would have prefered a different approach, more based on our experience with LCAs design, since it's design was chosen with a very low RCS in mind too. That's why we have chosen a tailless delta wing design, without canards, that's why we wanted a very small fighter, because the size alone is a big factor.

Another more practical approach could be of the current design and some off the shelf additions of the FGFA program. One could have thought about using the Type 30 engine in a single engine AMCA design for example, which would give much more commonality, or to use the all moving vertical tail design for too.

I even made some simple paintjobs once

AMCA current design:

Single engine, tailless wing design, with Type 30 engine and all moving:

 

[Dillinger]

First of all guys, Sancho is enough.

Dillinger, I know but I guessed S-Duct has already answered it. Imo we might be able to offer more on the material and coating side for a 5th gen fighter, than we can do at the design side. For every simple forumer like us, it is obvious that a stealth fighter must have angled surfaces and designing a fighter like that is not that difficult, however finding a design that is not only vlo, but also aerodynamical and offers good flight performance is something different. By the record of drag and overweight issues we have with our indigenous aircraft programs with conventional designs, I don't see how we can overcome this at such an advanced design.
The engine is of course another core issue, but just like it should have been done in LCA, we don't need an indigenous engine necessarily for our AMCA in general, or at least for the prototypes and early production versions. Even the T50 and the early Pak Fa versions, will use an available and proven engine, while the NG newly developed engine will come later only, so why do we without any know how in the engine field always want an indigenous engine for our fighter? Because we see it as a matter of pride and that is one of the main problem in most of our own developments anyway and as long we can't get over it, we won't get such development done the right way!


S-DUCT, to be honest none of them, because I am not an aero engineer and don't have deep know how about stealth design and like any forumer I want to see something new and innovative in any new fighter, that we have not seen in reality so far.
So I would have prefered a different approach, more based on our experience with LCAs design, since it's design was chosen with a very low RCS in mind too. That's why we have chosen a tailless delta wing design, without canards, that's why we wanted a very small fighter, because the size alone is a big factor.

Another more practical approach could be of the current design and some off the shelf additions of the FGFA program. One could have thought about using the Type 30 engine in a single engine AMCA design for example, which would give much more commonality, or to use the all moving vertical tail design for too.

I even made some simple paintjobs once

AMCA current design:

Single engine, tailless wing design, with Type 30 engine and all moving:

That's the thing sir, the Rafale deal is going to go down one way or the other- why not use that first rather than the FGFA? Makes things simpler. After all if a real 5th gen article is offered then it will have a long service life- one which will allow us to then fit in progressively more indigenous equipment on it.

Rafale's MDPU system and avionics are nearly 5th gen anyway and they are going to be built in large numbers- why not just design the AMCA around them and the GE engine from LCA MK.2? Hell the MDPU and core Rafale avionics went on board our Mirage upgrades too- and they are in production and operation unlike many of the components of the FGFA.

IF all of this could be settled then a single minded approach towards just a superior aerodynamic and VLO air frame would be far more easier. Tie that in with ADA/DRDO actually providing tooling and jig designs and you actually will succeed. Everything that's on the Rafale and the GE engine is largely going to end up being "Indian" barring where their design work was officially conducted and some systems that the OEM will want to retain to preserve their revenue stream.

Why not give greater stress to the IN on the AMCA project rather than the IAF since IN doesn't have a FGFA slated for itself? Either we are missing something, or at least I am or it seems (at the cost of sounding very pompous and presumptuous) that a few posters here could actually give a tip or two to the MOD and ADA/HAL/DRDO.

 

[sancho]

That's the thing sir, the Rafale deal is going to go down one way or the other- why not use that first rather than the FGFA? Makes things simpler...
...Why not give greater stress to the IN on the AMCA project rather than the IAF since IN doesn't have a FGFA slated for itself? Either we are missing something, or at least I am or it seems (at the cost of sounding very pompous and presumptuous) that a few posters here could actually give a tip or two to the MOD and ADA/HAL/DRDO.

Because this is not about using the available or coming advantages to the max, but for claiming we have developed an indigenous (in this case 5th gen) fighter, INCLUDING all systems on our own. Pride is the key driver here, not operational needs, or any sense to make it simple, that's why this project has many chances to face the same problems as in LCA too. So they will prefer delays of the projects than taking any part of the shelf, even if we produce it in India anyway.
I am saying the same for LCA MK2 btw too, with using RBE 2 AESA from BELs licence production line, instead of waiting for outdated indigenous puls doppler radars, or an immature indigenous AESA. LCA has suffered enough from this kind of thinking and we should do anything to get it done fast and simple now.

 

[Dillinger]

Because this is not about using the available or coming advantages to the max, but for claiming we have developed an indigenous (in this case 5th gen) fighter, INCLUDING all systems on our own. Pride is the key driver here, not operational needs, or any sense to make it simple, that's why this project has many chances to face the same problems as in LCA too. So they will prefer delays of the projects than taking any part of the shelf, even if we produce it in India anyway.
I am saying the same for LCA MK2 btw too, with using RBE 2 AESA from BELs licence production line, instead of waiting for outdated indigenous puls doppler radars, or an immature indigenous AESA. LCA has suffered enough from this kind of thinking and we should do anything to get it done fast and simple now.

Wouldn't is also go a long way in establishing horizontal equity across our fleet? I mean a common avionics base would be wonderful. Just saw a video of India's Cassidian division showcasing a made in India and designed in India conformal antenna, that's one of those things that goes onto a 5th gen- how does it matter which company produced it considering that its being manufactured in India?

Any hope that the aforementioned pride shall be ditched for pragmatism?

 

[Anony]

@sancho: Sir(if you don't mind),if you have given a choice to select final AMCA model (between 4& 5) which design will you choose & why?

Don't have much idea on stealth features. But if I consider both design to provide same structural stealth features, then I would go with the last(fifth) design. Here are my views. Others can differ and their comment on it is welcome

1. This design will result in lesser drag while climbing.

2. The wings will be able to accommodate one more hardpoint. It is because the hardpoints can be design in zig-zag mode inside the belly(internal) rather than in parallel mode. The space between the frontal wings and rear nozzle can be used to fit in the lengthy missiles.

3. Due to angled design of the wings from the rear as well, LO can be obtained from rear side as well(assuming fifth gen engine will become reality.)

4. The design will enable better roll capability.

Though the design may increase the landing and takeoff distance.

 

[MilSpec]

An alternate could be, abandoning amca altogether, and combining AMCA project with FGFA.... IAF will have an operational, reliable (hopefully) high technology high end platform.

 

[Dillinger]

An alternate could be, abandoning amca altogether, and combining AMCA project with FGFA.... IAF will have an operational, reliable (hopefully) high technology high end platform.

But the very fact that the AMCA is a medium fighter while the FGFA is a heavy one would make that less than feasible no? The FGFA project should go on as planned, then we will have one assured 5th gen in our kitty delinked from whatever might happen elsewhere, no?

 

[Dillinger]

@sandy_3126
From the information gleaned form you highly informative posts and Sancho sir's info the following is what a lay person like me cooked up, even remotely doable? Speculatively and in a suppository manner obvio.

That's the thing sir, the Rafale deal is going to go down one way or the other- why not use that first rather than the FGFA? Makes things simpler. After all if a real 5th gen article is offered then it will have a long service life- one which will allow us to then fit in progressively more indigenous equipment on it.

Rafale's MDPU system and avionics are nearly 5th gen anyway and they are going to be built in large numbers- why not just design the AMCA around them and the GE engine from LCA MK.2? Hell the MDPU and core Rafale avionics went on board our Mirage upgrades too- and they are in production and operation unlike many of the components of the FGFA.

IF all of this could be settled then a single minded approach towards just a superior aerodynamic and VLO air frame would be far more easier. Tie that in with ADA/DRDO actually providing tooling and jig designs and you actually will succeed. Everything that's on the Rafale and the GE engine is largely going to end up being "Indian" barring where their design work was officially conducted and some systems that the OEM will want to retain to preserve their revenue stream.

Why not give greater stress to the IN on the AMCA project rather than the IAF since IN doesn't have a FGFA slated for itself? Either we are missing something, or at least I am or it seems (at the cost of sounding very pompous and presumptuous) that a few posters here could actually give a tip or two to the MOD and ADA/HAL/DRDO.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...ct-heading-lca-direction-3.html#ixzz2QYkA7WRf