AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,484
Likes
8,555
Country flag
You need an Air Force design bureau for that kind of firm and informed ASQR. Guess which is the only service to not have a design bureau?
The only service that has taken to building in India seriously is the Navy. From basic landing ships in the 60s to the Leanders, to P-16 and now a f*cking Aircraft Carrier and SSBN, the Navy is the only branch that has actually achieved a great measure of indigenisation. And yet, despite all this and the critical role the Navy plays in countering China, it is the most neglected service!
 

rohit b3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
818
Likes
1,402
Country flag
The only service that has taken to building in India seriously is the Navy. From basic landing ships in the 60s to the Leanders, to P-16 and now a f*cking Aircraft Carrier and SSBN, the Navy is the only branch that has actually achieved a great measure of indigenisation. And yet, despite all this and the critical role the Navy plays in countering China, it is the most neglected service!
its clear that the Foreign Aircraft lobbies are more powerful than the Warship lobbies. I believed the navy wasnt as corrupted till i realized even they wont let the LCA project to succeed , and neither would they replace those outdated 1960s Seakings with modern Dhruvs for Anti-submarine purposes.
 

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,484
Likes
8,555
Country flag
its clear that the Foreign Aircraft lobbies are more powerful than the Warship lobbies. I believed the navy wasnt as corrupted till i realized even they wont let the LCA project to succeed , and neither would they replace those outdated 1960s Seakings with modern Dhruvs for Anti-submarine purposes.
Not the right thread, but I'll answer you anyway.

1. single engine fighter from a carrier is downright stupid. You wont be able to do a take off from a failed trapping. Its asking for crashes. Besides the Tejas in its present Power to weight ratio cant take off from a ski jump with any meaningful load.
2. Dhruvs... the NAVY is happy with Dhruvs in SAR role from land bases but doesnt want it onboard ships. In fact orders have recently been placed for more dhruvs for the navy. The reason is it has manually folding rotor blades! That makes manoeuvring in and out of a ship's hangar a big hassle, no?
 

R A Varun

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
255
Likes
477
Country flag
AMCA flight trials can be achieved by 2021 if the programme directors go for the existing technologies instead of the under development technologies like that of those onboard the tejas.
Building the aircraft in block variants would make it easier to be taken into skies, and validate its airframe and airframe changes required.
By when those technologies developed by the laboratories, it would take either weeks or months to get them flight tested. Only if the thorough testing of the airframe is completed successfully.
Because the engines are yet to be developed, the design bureau can take on proven high thrust engines available in the same category, to make a flight worthy airframe, whcih later on can be used as the test bed for futher technology developements. This is also the way the russians are going ahead in the PAKFA project fine tuning the airframe.
Building blocks also enables the AMCA more adoptable for the changes.
 

rohit b3

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
818
Likes
1,402
Country flag
Not the right thread, but I'll answer you anyway.

1. single engine fighter from a carrier is downright stupid. You wont be able to do a take off from a failed trapping. Its asking for crashes. Besides the Tejas in its present Power to weight ratio cant take off from a ski jump with any meaningful load.
2. Dhruvs... the NAVY is happy with Dhruvs in SAR role from land bases but doesnt want it onboard ships. In fact orders have recently been placed for more dhruvs for the navy. The reason is it has manually folding rotor blades! That makes manoeuvring in and out of a ship's hangar a big hassle, no?
LCA mk2 was always part of the Navy and be part of the Aircraft Carriers from the start. The Navy invested in the project. I dont see any problem with it being single engined.

Literally, 7-8 years ago the Navy made it clear that it will be the LCA mk2 to operate from Carriers, while the Navy would buy 6 LCA mk1 for shore based facilities and training purpose, which they ditched.

To summarize, LCA mk1 was never to operate from carriers. 45 LCA mk2 were to be ordered. People are acting as if the Navy "Dropped a bomb" and "rejected" Tejas.

But definitely, the foreign lobbies are in play now, trying to sell 57 Fighters to the Navy.
 

Vorschlaghammer

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
337
Likes
589
Country flag
Sorry

Sorry I quoted wrong post, the post above the one I quoted.
oh, ok then. I must say the very short "tailboom" is reminiscent of the Marut. And I would be royally disappointed if those rounded nozzles end up with non 3D TVC engines. Non TVC engine paired with higher observable nozzle on a 5th Gen platform is like the worst of both worlds.
 
Last edited:

shuvo@y2k10

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,709
Country flag
If chatter in BRF is to be beleived then canards is making a comeback in Tejas Mk2 (purely speculative)
8sLN4tD.jpg

47D98dc.jpg

tejas4-797363.JPG

It was showcased in 90s wind-tunnel model but dropped from final product.
 

kurup

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
568
Likes
1,285
Country flag
If chatter in BRF is to be beleived then canards is making a comeback in Tejas Mk2 (purely speculative)View attachment 21078
View attachment 21079
View attachment 21081
It was showcased in 90s wind-tunnel model but dropped from final product.
If you look closely the model with canards ( 1st and 2nd pic), we can see that its not the current LCA configuration especially the wings .

In the 3rd image , the silver coloured portion is not actually a canard but just the forward leading edge of the wings ..... the black and silver colour pattern only make it look like a canard .

Going for canard means a entire redesign of the aircraft .... so not going to happen imo .
 

shuvo@y2k10

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,709
Country flag
Just like AMCA, the LCA in the 90s undergone various design iteration before the final configuration was frozen. ADA now has much higher aircraft design expertise than in 90s with high performance supercomputing facility being used extensively to make the design more aerodynamic and stealthy. Canards is just one option just like Levcons being added to LCA navy to make the aircraft more aerodynamic. Of course if the the entire airframe has to be redesigned then this plan will be dropped or taken up much later in stealthy LCA Mk 3 variant(if IAF agrees) which will happen after MK 2 design being frozen by 2018-2019.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
Just a wild guesstimate by me based on what rate Tejas is planned at and considering the fact that AMCA is a significantly more complex machine.

Let us consider what the US faced in F-16 and F-35 production lines. F-16 production line at Fort Worth was producing one F-16 in one day (crazy right?) in 1987. Now with the F-35, they plan a full-steam production at somewhere about 50-60 aircraft per year.

So if we achieve 18/year, it might not be all that bad. A production rate of 40 per year requires a very large order ~400-500 aircraft to be placed. And it requires a significantly larger defence supplier chain than what we have today and might have in the future, especially seeing as the Air Force seems intent on killing Tejas Mk2 by throwing a F-16 at it.
If we know to make 10, we can make 100. Mass production scaling is not a problem if necessary. What matters is if we can make our own technologies. Making more of the same thing is never a problem. We have huge population at our disposal which will soon be greatest of all in history of mankind.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,621
Likes
21,088
Country flag
We need MK-2 but it has to be based on significantly improved Naval Model not marginally improved IAF model.

Naval MK-2 version is not only 0.8 m longer than AF MK-2 version but also has its main landing gear moved out of the fuselage and into wing roots. Which not only provides large freed up space in fuselage --for more fuel and electronics-- but also better aerodynamics because of better wing body blending. Speaking of aerodynamics Naval MK-2 also has LEVCON which can not only be used for reducing speeds during landing but if integrated with FCS can also be used for improving low-speed handling during entire flight regime which in specific terms means shorter take-off and landing distances, tighter turns greater Gs at lesser speeds, better L/D performance etc.

In nutshell, Naval MK-2 can lift higher, fly farther/longer and fight better. Still why IAF and IN is not standardizing on one design is beyond all logic?...........It is another thing that just like IAF even IN now is becoming an import loving service also. God damn the Air Marshals and Admirals(now, also)




Naval Version

I have always maintained that we must make LCA MK2 navy first and than curve out Airforce MK2 out of it. Even Proposed Airforce Mk2 with EJ 230 can simply be an @$$ kicker. Imagine a plane aerodynamically superior, weighing just 6.2 ton empty and having a 73 KG dry thrust engine and 108 ton afterburner and range 2500 KM+. Bloody that shall be an @$$ kicker and outclass anything in the world.
 

Pulkit

Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs"
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
1,622
Likes
590
Country flag
I have always maintained that we must make LCA MK2 navy first and than curve out Airforce MK2 out of it. Even Proposed Airforce Mk2 with EJ 230 can simply be an @$$ kicker. Imagine a plane aerodynamically superior, weighing just 6.2 ton empty and having a 73 KG dry thrust engine and 108 ton afterburner and range 2500 KM+. Bloody that shall be an @$$ kicker and outclass anything in the world.
I am all in for LCA MK2 for Navy but I am unable to imagine it coming before the Airforce version.
Why?
1) Technologically it is more tedious to develop a Naval Version.
2) The Landing System and Takeoff, Limits the extents a designer can explore options.
3) We don't have the experience to create the Naval version directly.
4) Economically it will not be feasible to design an aircrafts for Navy alone.
5) I know it doesn't not matter but IAF has already committed itself to MK2 but Navy has recently sidelined itself.
6) If Mk1A is a success then I am sure MK2 will get a boost but its not looking healthy.
 

HariPrasad-1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
9,621
Likes
21,088
Country flag
I am all in for LCA MK2 for Navy but I am unable to imagine it coming before the Airforce version.
Why?
1) Technologically it is more tedious to develop a Naval Version.
2) The Landing System and Takeoff, Limits the extents a designer can explore options.
3) We don't have the experience to create the Naval version directly.
4) Economically it will not be feasible to design an aircrafts for Navy alone.
5) I know it doesn't not matter but IAF has already committed itself to MK2 but Navy has recently sidelined itself.
6) If Mk1A is a success then I am sure MK2 will get a boost but its not looking healthy.
My logic behind the idea is that Once you make an airforce version, you do almost everything once again to make naval version. One you have a naval version, you just have to derate it. More over Naval Mk2 is a real aerodynamic design unlike Airforce Mk2 which is a compromise. Naval Tejas shall have LAVCON which IAF may adopt if they want. Navy has a better record in getting things done.
 

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
3,652
Likes
5,790
Country flag
I have always maintained that we must make LCA MK2 navy first and than curve out Airforce MK2 out of it. Even Proposed Airforce Mk2 with EJ 230 can simply be an @$$ kicker. Imagine a plane aerodynamically superior, weighing just 6.2 ton empty and having a 73 KG dry thrust engine and 108 ton afterburner and range 2500 KM+. Bloody that shall be an @$$ kicker and outclass anything in the world.
This version has the potential to give Gripen run for its money. Let alone Gripen E becoming the workhorse of IAF by becoming single-engine fighter winner.......But this is what we think. The Air Marshals along with (now sadly) Admirals think that there are multiple benefits of buying a foreign fighter. One of them are heafty Retirement Benefits.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top