Indian AMCA proposal

[Water Car Engineer]

Reminds of this old fan design.

 

[sancho]

Excellent work Sancho, everything is fine except from the Tailless delta design...

Why do you think the tailles delta design would not be a good choice?

We need twin engine design @sancho if we go for 20-25 tonne plane.

The one has nothing to do with the other:

F16 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 21t
J10 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 19t
F35 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 30t
Saab stealth fighter concept - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 23t:

http://i.imgur.com/nVtBC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bMNSB.jpg

Turkish Aviation Industries stealth fighter concepts - single engine, medium class fighter:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UinV5WaXsCA/UYmmGDHUtoI/AAAAAAAAZn4/vvuzJ7oaf2A/s1600/national+combined+aircraft+conceptual+design+turkish+air+force+fifth+5th+generation+fighter+jet+(1).jpg

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/TonyO/TAI_5thGen_Design1600.jpg


So the medium weight class, is clearly not an arguement to have 2 x engines!

It will be useless if its not twin Engine considering that it will replace the strike platforms..at least for India.

First of all, my point was to develop it for IN mainly, which means it won't replace any fighter. Secondly the number of engines have nothing to do with strike capabilities, or do you want to say that F16 and F35 would have bad strike capability?

Bro, little bit of MS paint and you get MCA twin engine

Since the base was ADAs twin engine AMCA design, I would only had to change the wing design IF twin engine would be my aim. As explained in my storyline, the aim is to develop a stealth fighter that can be inducted fast and is as cost-effective as possible. Therefor using the same engine and common parts of FGFA in a single engine design, instead of devloping a whole new engine, is clearly the better choice, besides that it's operationally more cost-effective too.

Btw, MCA = Medium Combat Aircraft, it discribes only the weight class of the fighter not the number of engines.

 

[faithfulguy]

Why do you think the tailles delta design would not be a good choice?


The one has nothing to do with the other:

F16 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 21t
J10 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 19t
F35 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 30t
Saab stealth fighter concept - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 23t:

http://i.imgur.com/nVtBC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bMNSB.jpg

Turkish Aviation Industries stealth fighter concepts - single engine, medium class fighter:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UinV5WaXsCA/UYmmGDHUtoI/AAAAAAAAZn4/vvuzJ7oaf2A/s1600/national+combined+aircraft+conceptual+design+turkish+air+force+fifth+5th+generation+fighter+jet+(1).jpg

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/TonyO/TAI_5thGen_Design1600.jpg


So the medium weight class, is clearly not an arguement to have 2 x engines!



First of all, my point was to develop it for IN mainly, which means it won't replace any fighter. Secondly the number of engines have nothing to do with strike capabilities, or do you want to say that F16 and F35 would have bad strike capability?



Since the base was ADAs twin engine AMCA design, I would only had to change the wing design IF twin engine would be my aim. As explained in my storyline, the aim is to develop a stealth fighter that can be inducted fast and is as cost-effective as possible. Therefor using the same engine and common parts of FGFA in a single engine design, instead of devloping a whole new engine, is clearly the better choice, besides that it's operationally more cost-effective too.

Btw, MCA = Medium Combat Aircraft, so it discribes only the weight class of the fighter not the number of engines.

In your opinion, is it still too early to determine if India will ever be building AMCA? If so, when will India make this decision?

 

[sancho]

In your opinion, is it still too early to determine if India will ever be building AMCA? If so, when will India make this decision?

Whenever it is needed, I am only pointing out that there are better ways and more important requirements than for IAF. So the focus in on LCA and rightly so, since it adds the most to Indian industrial development.

 

[faithfulguy]

Whenever it is needed, I am only pointing out that there are better ways and more important requirements than for IAF. So the focus in on LCA and rightly so, since it adds the most to Indian industrial development.

Totally agree with you. India should focus on getting LCA completely ready. Its still a way to go before its combat ready. Right now, its pretty much most appropriate for parades and shows. How long do you think it would take LCA ready for combat?

 

[sms]

F16 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 21t
J10 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 19t
F35 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 30t
Saab stealth fighter concept - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 23t:

I concur 2 engine argument is silly. We need an aircraft meeting our requirements. Single and double engine requirements should be secondary.

Since the base was ADAs twin engine AMCA design, I would only had to change the wing design IF twin engine would be my aim. As explained in my storyline, the aim is to develop a stealth fighter that can be inducted fast and is as cost-effective as possible. Therefor using the same engine and common parts of FGFA in a single engine design, instead of devloping a whole new engine, is clearly the better choice, besides that it's operationally more cost-effective too.

Btw, MCA = Medium Combat Aircraft, it discribes only the weight class of the fighter not the number of engines.

Sane and smart post!!
We need capable platform which can be produced quickly and share parts, resources and design elements to have common maintenance procedure and optimize the inventory & provide enough flexibility.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Totally agree with you. India should focus on getting LCA completely ready. Its still a way to go before its combat ready. Right now, its pretty much most appropriate for parades and shows. How long do you think it would take LCA ready for combat?

By end of next year. When it can able to have BVR missiles also. recently also f-16 also got BVR facility in PAF. so last many years F-16 flying in Non-combat mode as per IAF standards.

 

[Dash]

Why do you think the tailles delta design would not be a good choice?

I feel there is a reason why US hardly pursued tailless designs, because of high cruising speed and additional control mechanism for control over stalling, in flight refuellling leading to a greater design challenge. If we look at tailless delta that they had was SR 71 which was meant for cruising only. I feel convntional delta will be advantageous in the making of a fighter plane.

First of all, my point was to develop it for IN mainly, which means it won't replace any fighter. Secondly the number of engines have nothing to do with strike capabilities, or do you want to say that F16 and F35 would have bad strike capability?

Yes, it would be useless if they use the low yeilding Kaveri engine.

 

[sancho]

Right now, its pretty much most appropriate for parades and shows.

That's your personal believe only and we know where that is coming from. It will be combat ready with the addition of BVR missiles.

I feel there is a reason why US hardly pursued tailless designs

Actually they have, F117, B2, YF 23, even the bomber varient proposal based on the F22 was a tailless delta wing design and when you look at the future and Boeings 6th gen fighter concepts, all tailless delta wings, even without the vertical tails!
However my point is, that we chose the tailless delta wing design for Tejas for good reasons and the less surface structures the design has, the lower the RCS. So continuing with that design, for a fighter project with even more focus on a low RCS, should be the most logical way don't you think? It would be a waste if we don't take the experience we got from the tailless delta design and want to develop a complete new design for AMCA.
Another advantage of the delta wing design, is the increased fuel capacity that the larger wings offer and for a carrier fighter that is a crucial capability for increased range and endurance.
Also don't forget that I mentioned LEVCONS and TVC, both features to increase control and maneuverability.

Yes, it would be useless if they use the low yeilding Kaveri engine.

I want a single engine varient of the FGFA's type 30 engine, exactly because I don't want to waste time and money on a new Kaveri engine development, to make it useful for 5th gen fighters.
Let them improve the current Kaveri to replace GE engines in LCA and Klimov engines in Mig 29K (if possible even M88 in Rafale), but taking a single engine in varients for all stealth fighters is easier and more cost-effective. In fact, the type 30, or a downgraded varient should be an option for the AL31 replacement of MKI in future too, which shows the importance of the type 30 for Indian forces in future. We already made a big mistake if we didn't jointed the development of the type 30 to gain knowledge of NG engine techs. Now we have to at least focus on not only licence producing the type 30 engine, but also modifying and improving it with custom parts, according to our requirements.

 

[sms]

I want a single engine varient of the FGFA's type 30 engine, exactly because I don't want to waste time and money on a new Kaveri engine development, to make it useful for 5th gen fighters.
Let them improve the current Kaveri to replace GE engines in LCA and Klimov engines in Mig 29K (if possible even M88 in Rafale), but taking a single engine in varients for all stealth fighters is easier and more cost-effective. In fact, the type 30, or a downgraded varient should be an option for the AL31 replacement of MKI in future too, which shows the importance of the type 30 for Indian forces in future. We already made a big mistake if we didn't jointed the development of the type 30 to gain knowledge of NG engine techs. Now we have to at least focus on not only licence producing the type 30 engine, but also modifying and improving it with custom parts, according to our requirements.

My wish list...
- Common engine for all new aircrafts - If possible
- Common Radar
- Common Weapon package
- Common Avionics and protection suite
- Common IRST
- Common communication protocol
- Seamless integration/ connection/ communication with AWAC/ Ground base radars/ satellites/ UAV/ UCAVs/ front line troops

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Why do you think the tailles delta design would not be a good choice?


The one has nothing to do with the other:

F16 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 21t
J10 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 19t
F35 - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 30t
Saab stealth fighter concept - single engine, medium class fighter with a MTOW above 23t:

http://i.imgur.com/nVtBC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bMNSB.jpg

Turkish Aviation Industries stealth fighter concepts - single engine, medium class fighter:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UinV5WaXsCA/UYmmGDHUtoI/AAAAAAAAZn4/vvuzJ7oaf2A/s1600/national+combined+aircraft+conceptual+design+turkish+air+force+fifth+5th+generation+fighter+jet+(1).jpg

http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/TonyO/TAI_5thGen_Design1600.jpg


So the medium weight class, is clearly not an arguement to have 2 x engines!



First of all, my point was to develop it for IN mainly, which means it won't replace any fighter. Secondly the number of engines have nothing to do with strike capabilities, or do you want to say that F16 and F35 would have bad strike capability?



Since the base was ADAs twin engine AMCA design, I would only had to change the wing design IF twin engine would be my aim. As explained in my storyline, the aim is to develop a stealth fighter that can be inducted fast and is as cost-effective as possible. Therefor using the same engine and common parts of FGFA in a single engine design, instead of devloping a whole new engine, is clearly the better choice, besides that it's operationally more cost-effective too.

Btw, MCA = Medium Combat Aircraft, it discribes only the weight class of the fighter not the number of engines.

@sancho- arguably the US engines because of the extensive experience and development are reliable enough to go with a single engine conf. Lacking that reliability, a twin engine conf. is more acceptable? The word was always that the kaveri is not fully shelved and that work will continue until it's ready for either mid life engine refit for the LCA/ NLCA or as the main engine for AMCA. So isn't a twin engine config more appropriate for AMCA? (There have been clear claims that at least a tech demonstrator LCA with kaveri will fly BTW)

 

[帅的一匹]

IAF already invest in FGFA, why some AMCA agian? If AMCA modified to use a DSI intake, problem might be solved?

AMCA will be able to make maiden flight until year 2025 in terms of the development speed of LCA.

If Kaveri could keep improving, a very suitable engine for AMCA. India scientist shall wok harder and given a deadline.

 

[sancho]

@sancho- arguably the US engines because of the extensive experience and development are reliable enough to go with a single engine conf. Lacking that reliability, a twin engine conf. is more acceptable? The word was always that the kaveri is not fully shelved and that work will continue until it's ready for either mid life engine refit for the LCA/ NLCA or as the main engine for AMCA. So isn't a twin engine config more appropriate for AMCA? (There have been clear claims that at least a tech demonstrator LCA with kaveri will fly BTW)

Of course a US/western engines would have advantages over Russian once in engine life, maintenance, but the reliability has come a long way. J10s and JF17s are flying since years with Russian single engine varients and doesn't seem to have issue so far.
DRDO wants Kaveri engine, because they failed to develop it as promised for LCA and now they want to prove it's worth, but that's only a way for the going for the next. When they didn't were able to make it useful for a basic 4th gen LCA, how do we realistically expect them to add it to a 5th fighter, with SC and TVC capabilities? That's not going to happen anytime soon and is not needed anyway. If we had gone for a co-development years ago, Kaveri K10 would had been a good choice, but now it would only delay an AMCA project and would increase the development (and operational) costs.
However, as I said earlier we still should try to modify the type 30 according to our needs and if we can add own content to make it more reliable or extend it's life, great. That should be our aim, MKIzing the engine and learning from such an advanced tech and not thinking that we can do such things right away too.

 

[IND151]

Did you bother reading my citation in the original post? The AMCA has been halted. I have simply conducted an analysis of the AMCA based on the best previously available information.

Here is what I'm saying in plain English. If the AMCA is the size of a LCA then it can't have S-ducts.

I'm also saying that an AMCA with the size of a F-35 may have S-ducts that do not allow supercruise. The F-35 has S-ducts, but it can't supercruise.

In conclusion, I'm making the point that a stealth fighter probably has to be 19 meters or 20 meters in length to permit S-ducts that allow supercruise.

Because that requires low bypass ratio turbofans; F 35 has high bypass ratio turbofans.

Plus shape its air frame and its intended role of jack of all trades also doesn't help.

In conclusion, I'm making the point that a stealth fighter probably has to be 19 meters or 20 meters in length to permit S-ducts that allow super cruise

What a find, 'sire'!

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

IAF already invest in FGFA, why some AMCA agian? If AMCA modified to use a DSI intake, problem might be solved?

AMCA will be able to make maiden flight until year 2025 in terms of the development speed of LCA.

If Kaveri could keep improving, a very suitable engine for AMCA. India scientist shall wok harder and given a deadline.

DSI is not hi-fi technology without which plane is inferior, If fact , most of the successful plane made without using DSI technology, China also making plane without DSI more.