AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by screwterrorists, Feb 16, 2009.

  1. binayak95

    binayak95 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    Cuttack, Orissa
    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!
     
  2. rohit b3

    rohit b3 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    343
    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wasnt as corrupted till i realized even they wont let the LCA project to succeed , and neither would they replace those outdated 1960s Seakings with modern Dhruvs for Anti-submarine purposes.
     
  3. binayak95

    binayak95 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    583
    Location:
    Cuttack, Orissa
    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?
     
  4. R A Varun

    R A Varun Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    bengaluru
    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.
     
    Johny_Baba, VIP, Willy2 and 3 others like this.
  5. rohit b3

    rohit b3 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    343
    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.
     
    Superdefender likes this.
  6. WolfPack86

    WolfPack86 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    2,842
  7. WolfPack86

    WolfPack86 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    2,842
  8. Steven Rogers

    Steven Rogers Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    179

    Attached Files:

  9. Vorschlaghammer

    Vorschlaghammer Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2017
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    279
    this is the intake pipe. The end section goes upto the engine intake. Nozzle section is separate.
     
  10. Steven Rogers

    Steven Rogers Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2017
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    179
    Sorry
    Sorry I quoted wrong post, the post above the one I quoted.
     
  11. Vorschlaghammer

    Vorschlaghammer Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2017
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    279
    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: Oct 17, 2017
  12. WolfPack86

    WolfPack86 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    2,842
    Can Tejas Mark 2 carry Brahmos A missile.
     
  13. shuvo@y2k10

    [email protected] Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    kolkata
    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.
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  14. kurup

    kurup Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    466
    Location:
    keralam
    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 .
     
  15. shuvo@y2k10

    [email protected] Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,346
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    kolkata
    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.
     
  16. Kshithij

    Kshithij Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2017
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    529
    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.
     
    aditya10r likes this.
  17. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    3,302
    Likes Received:
    3,654
    Location:
    Gujarat
    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.
     
  18. Pulkit

    Pulkit Satyameva Jayate "Truth Alone Triumphs" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    391
    Location:
    India
    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.
     
  19. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    3,302
    Likes Received:
    3,654
    Location:
    Gujarat
    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.
     
  20. Rahul Singh

    Rahul Singh Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    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.
     

Share This Page