AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[scatterStorm]

The performance could been sustained for testings and not the final variant of the plane. They also didn't showed the serrated engine nozzle.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

More way to say, kaboom will sound more from miles away, making it's stealth characteristics vulnerable.

Here's a IEEE paper:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7225298/

 

[Sancho]

If this is true, we might have a lemon AMCA.

More importantly than that, if AMCA isn't focused on advanced capabilities anymore, IAF hardly can complain about the performance of Su 57, which outclasses AMCA even with the current engine.

 

[Steven Rogers]

More importantly than that, if AMCA isn't focused on advanced capabilities anymore, IAF hardly can complain about the performance of Su 57, which outclasses AMCA even with the current engine.

AMCA is a balance bw stealth and maneuverability, brochures change with every expo and show. Aero India video brochure says super cruise, supermaneuverability. In real Supermaneuverability is just a marketing kit used by russkies to market their offering. High degree of agility is more important than dancing at slow speed, just cause Russian aircraft have poor acceleration bw slow speed and mid Mach nos.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

Ri
right approach .

We only hv 414 as engine choice.
Promising super cruise with meaningful load is not possible, bcos engine doesn't hv spare power .

So go the mk1, mk2 way.

First deliver a baseline stealth striker.

Upgrade when better engine tech comes around.
Dont over promise & under deliver.

First of all, this is an ADA/DRDO project, so over ambitious promises are build in.

Secondly, there is no LCA MK1 / MK2 way, since MK2 is meant to fix the design issues of the earlier and is not just a standard upgrade.

Also, the fighter needs to be developed according to IAFs requirements and "so far", they included SC and TVC, because IAF don't just want an F35, but a proper 5th gen multi role fighter!
And keep in mind that it originally was aimed at 2 x 90kN, while even the standard GE414 would provide 2 x 98kN thrust.

 

[Sancho]

AMCA is a balance bw stealth and maneuverability, brochures change with every expo and show. Aero India video brochure says super cruise, supermaneuverability. In real Supermaneuverability is just a marketing kit used by russkies to market their offering. High degree of agility is more important than dancing at slow speed, just cause Russian aircraft have poor acceleration bw slow speed and mid Mach nos.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

There is so much wrong in your post, I don't even know where to start?

Russian fighters are known for high speeds and acceleration, which were key advantages of the Mig series for examples for decade (read up reports of western pilots praising the Mig 29 for example). But since fighter design evolved, new features to increase manuverability were added to standard airframe designs => TVC (F22, Flankers, Mig 35), or canards (Su 30MKI/MKM, European delta canards), or now movable LERX (Su 57, Airbus concept).

Contrary to US fighters that lost focus on flight performance and manuverability, in favour for BVR combat advantages, Russia always had and will remain with more focus on flight performance and manuverability!

And yes, AMCA according to IAFs requirements, was meant to provide a balanced multi role fighter, rather than the initial plans of MCA, as a strike fighter. That's exactly why flight performance and manuverability were added to make it more capable. That's why the performance specs and no mention of "A"dvanced features anymore, questions if the requirements were reduced again?

P.S. The biggest advantage of TVC is to increase turn ability at high speeds and not at low speeds, that's where canards come in (Su 35 / Su 34).

 

[Steven Rogers]

There is so much wrong in your post, I don't even know where to start?

Russian fighters are known for high speeds and acceleration, which were key advantages of the Mig series for examples for decade (read up reports of western pilots praising the Mig 29 for example). But since fighter design evolved, new features to increase manuverability were added to standard airframe designs => TVC (F22, Flankers, Mig 35), or canards (Su 30MKI/MKM, European delta canards), or now movable LERX (Su 57, Airbus concept).

Contrary to US fighters that lost focus on flight performance and manuverability, in favour for BVR combat advantages, Russia always had and will remain with more focus on flight performance and manuverability!

And yes, AMCA according to IAFs requirements, was meant to provide a balanced multi role fighter, rather than the initial plans of MCA, as a strike fighter. That's exactly why flight performance and manuverability were added to make it more capable. That's why the performance specs and no mention of "A"dvanced features anymore, questions if the requirements were reduced again?

P.S. The biggest advantage of TVC is to increase turn ability at high speeds and not at low speeds, that's where canards come in (Su 35 / Su 34).

Bit to correct you, Falcons, F35 have better acc bw 0.3 Mach to 0.7 Mach, Flankers accelerates faster in transonic and supersonic speed, but lack the same in low to mid subsonic, therefore without a TVC , they are a truck against delta wings and Falcons. Canards, are part of aerodynamic, and has most to do with maneuverability than acceleration,yep they can reduce acc by increasing induced drag. Moving LERX or LEVCON concept is also an indian concept. Contrary to US, they focus more on traditional energy maneuvering, F16 is a prior example, and F18 shows so in slow and mid subsonic speed. Requirements don't get reduced with in small time span. Even if they deduce Thrust vector, the aerodynamic is subjected to high agile and the powerplant gives more than enough thrust to supercruise in prototype stage only.(2x100kN class exactly what Chinese J31 needs to supercruise). The more concern thing is the exposed nozzle, need no less than a zagged one and for that Kaveri is required in place of F414ins6. AMCA is still focused on being a strike aircraft primarily. In recent interview, the ADA Chief said about the design to be perfectly balanced for strike missions as primary, Radar will carry modes for terrain masking along with an advance targeting pod(most likely Lightening 5).

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Bleh]

Even if they deduce Thrust vector, the aerodynamic is subjected to high agile and the powerplant gives more than enough thrust to supercruise in prototype stage only.(2x100kN class exactly what Chinese J31 needs to supercruise). The more concern thing is the exposed nozzle, need no less than a zagged one and for that Kaveri is required in place of F414ins6.

With two 115kn class engines, how will AMCA not supercruise?

The 8g limit also seems to be meant for only the upcoming prototypes!

 

[Kshithij]

With two 115kn class engines, how will AMCA not supercruise?

The 8g limit also seems to be meant for only the upcoming prototypes!

When they say 8G, they mean 8G at all altitudes and in all climates. The so called 9G works only in the colder climates of Europe or USA. The engines can't handle that in Indian climate. The engines will not be overpowered to 115kN as the turbofans work efficiently at maximum power and hence the plane will regularly suffer from low mileage due to high drag.

 

[Steven Rogers]

With two 115kn class engines, how will AMCA not supercruise?

The 8g limit also seems to be meant for only the upcoming prototypes!

110kN is the overshoot requirement or the safe requirement. Generally planes around that class are powered by GEf414 which is a 100kN class engine.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

Bit to correct you, Falcons, F35 have better acc bw 0.3 Mach to 0.7 Mach, Flankers accelerates faster in transonic and supersonic speed, but lack the same in low to mid subsonic, therefore without a TVC , they are a truck against delta wings and Falcons.

Canards, are part of aerodynamic, and has most to do with maneuverability...

First of all I clearly mentioned the Mig series, which are known for performances and acceleration (Mig 31, 23, or 29 for example). Secondly, you just contradicted your earlier statement, that supermanuverability is just a Russian marketing kit!

Moving LERX or LEVCON concept is also an indian concept.

Not really, since the LEVCONS on NLCA are only movable in 3 positions and focused on improving the slow speed handling of the fighter during carrier landings, since the delta wing design is aimed at higher speeds. It's not a feature to increase manuverability in air combats, nor was it developed to replace canards and provide lower radar reflections, because that is the aim of the Russian system!

Requirements don't get reduced with in small time span.

They only get reduced if certain plans change and that's the point! There is no reason to keep the performance out of the latest spec boards, or to limit the fighter to Mach 1.8 and 8g, unless something has changed in the view of the project.

The more concern thing is the exposed nozzle, need no less than a zagged one

:biggrin2: Yeah right, because that makes the difference. Not to mention that saw tooth patterns are the easiest part. IR reduction will be far more difficult.

AMCA is still focused on being a strike aircraft primarily.

There is nothing like a strike aircraft today anymore, since any fighter is just reduced to be a weapon launch platform. That's why Air superiority fighters like Flankers, F15s, EF or even the F22 today are used for strike missions.
Even the F35 is a multi role fighter and the only advantage it has in strike, compared to an F22, is that it can carry 2000lb JDAMs, while the F22 weapon bay can carry 1000lb JDAMs only.
Even the integrated LDP of the F35 is only useful, if you have laser guided weapons to use, but basic CAS is planned with external LGB loads, that's why AMCA, FGFA or F22, could use an external LDP with the same weapon configuration too.

However, without built in flight performance and advanced features from design, an F35 can't offer the same A2A capabilities as an F22 or FGFA. So if AMCA comes with reduced performance, it will also be a medicore air defence fighter too and the weapon bay layout already looks pretty poor. And that's what IAF wanted to avoid!

 

[Steven Rogers]

First of all I clearly mentioned the Mig series, which are known for performances and acceleration (Mig 31, 23, or 29 for example). Secondly, you just contradicted your earlier statement, that supermanuverability is just a Russian marketing kit!



Not really, since the LEVCONS on NLCA are only movable in 3 positions and focused on improving the slow speed handling of the fighter during carrier landings, since the delta wing design is aimed at higher speeds. It's not a feature to increase manuverability in air combats, nor was it developed to replace canards and provide lower radar reflections, because that is the aim of the Russian system!



They only get reduced if certain plans change and that's the point! There is no reason to keep the performance out of the latest spec boards, or to limit the fighter to Mach 1.8 and 8g, unless something has changed in the view of the project.



:biggrin2: Yeah right, because that makes the difference. Not to mention that saw tooth patterns are the easiest part. IR reduction will be far more difficult.



There is nothing like a strike aircraft today anymore, since any fighter is just reduced to be a weapon launch platform. That's why Air superiority fighters like Flankers, F15s, EF or even the F22 today are used for strike missions.
Even the F35 is a multi role fighter and the only advantage it has in strike, compared to an F22, is that it can carry 2000lb JDAMs, while the F22 weapon bay can carry 1000lb JDAMs only.
Even the integrated LDP of the F35 is only useful, if you have laser guided weapons to use, but basic CAS is planned with external LGB loads, that's why AMCA, FGFA or F22, could use an external LDP with the same weapon configuration too.

However, without built in flight performance and advanced features from design, an F35 can't offer the same A2A capabilities as an F22 or FGFA. So if AMCA comes with reduced performance, it will also be a medicore air defence fighter too and the weapon bay layout already looks pretty poor. And that's what IAF wanted to avoid!

Not really, highly maneuverable in one case is not hyped as supermaneuverable in other case.

LEVCON on LCA NAVY was meant for improving L/D ratio at high subsonic speed, along with the mentioned.

This brochure was published after the preliminary design frozen. It will be indeed good if the aerodynamic cruises at 1.8mach.

That's not a complete truth, F22 radar or EFT radar are designed for air superiority and have limited A2G role, Su35 or Su30 are multirole, but in excel in air superiority and lag in ground strike when compared with strike aircrafts like Rafale and F35. Weapon bay of a mid combat fighter can't carry 8 missiles, they are restricted to 4 due to space constraints, KFX OR TFX have that limitation too .

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Sancho]

Not really, highly maneuverable in one case is not hyped as supermaneuverable in other case.

A fighter that by design has high TWR and low wingloading is considered as highly manouverable, but fighters that add features like canards or TVC further improves this to supermanuverability. That's why the F22 with high performance + TVC for years was the benchmark when it comes to manoeuvrability and why only fighters with similar performance and additional features can keep up with it (EF, Rafale). So you are wrong about the Russian marketing, just as it being hyped.

LEVCON on LCA NAVY was meant for improving L/D ratio at high subsonic speed, along with the mentioned.

As already explained, for carrier landings, therfore a different system with a different purpose.

That's not a complete truth, F22 radar or EFT radar are designed for air superiority and have limited A2G role, Su35 or Su30 are multirole, but in excel in air superiority and lag in ground strike when compared

Wrong! All Flankers share the same wing design, hardpoints and weapons, that's why a Su 34, Su 35, Su 30MKI, Su 30 MKK (Plaaf), can all use the same Russian weapons at the same wing stations. The only difference is, how the version is geared to a specific role, by adding certain features. Su 34 got carnards, armored cockpit and low level flight avionics for low level A2G. Su 35 increased speed and TVC with higher performance engine, for high altitude performance, the MKK was aimed at strikes and maritime attack, while IAF took the same base MK and made it more capable for A2A combats, with canards, TVC and PESA radar.

The EF with Brimstone and PW4, just as the F15Es are bomb trucks in certain missions and the USAF even prefers the F22s in low collateral damage strikes at the moment, since it already has SDB integration.

That's why an air superiority fighter today can be a good strike fighter too, while a low performance multi rolet fighter, can't be a good air superiority fighter.

with strike aircrafts like Rafale and F35. Weapon bay of a mid combat fighter can't carry 8 missiles, they are restricted to 4 due to space constraints, KFX OR TFX have that limitation too .

Rafale is not a strike fighter, but a balanced multi role combat fighter, that offers SC and canards to improve A2A performance.
And F22, J20 and Su 57 have dedicated WVR missile bays too. Just 2 missiles in A2G config is a poor load, be it for the F35 or AMCA.

 

[Steven Rogers]

A fighter that by design has high TWR and low wingloading is considered as highly manouverable, but fighters that add features like canards or TVC further improves this to supermanuverability. That's why the F22 with high performance + TVC for years was the benchmark when it comes to manoeuvrability and why only fighters with similar performance and additional features can keep up with it (EF, Rafale). So you are wrong about the Russian marketing, just as it being hyped.



As already explained, for carrier landings, therfore a different system with a different purpose.



Wrong! All Flankers share the same wing design, hardpoints and weapons, that's why a Su 34, Su 35, Su 30MKI, Su 30 MKK (Plaaf), can all use the same Russian weapons at the same wing stations. The only difference is, how the version is geared to a specific role, by adding certain features. Su 34 got carnards, armored cockpit and low level flight avionics for low level A2G. Su 35 increased speed and TVC with higher performance engine, for high altitude performance, the MKK was aimed at strikes and maritime attack, while IAF took the same base MK and made it more capable for A2A combats, with canards, TVC and PESA radar.

The EF with Brimstone and PW4, just as the F15Es are bomb trucks in certain missions and the USAF even prefers the F22s in low collateral damage strikes at the moment, since it already has SDB integration.

That's why an air superiority fighter today can be a good strike fighter too, while a low performance multi rolet fighter, can't be a good air superiority fighter.



Rafale is not a strike fighter, but a balanced multi role combat fighter, that offers SC and canards to improve A2A performance.
And F22, J20 and Su 57 have dedicated WVR missile bays too. Just 2 missiles in A2G config is a poor load, be it for the F35 or AMCA.

Not true, Canards are added with the requirement, Canards are used still to make aircraft highly maneuverable rather than super maneuverable, super maneuverable is said to be the maneuvers which include extremely high degree of maneuvers which aren't possible withiut TVC, such as 90 degree AOA with TVC by sukhoi, but that ain't relevant in an actual combat rather than the airshows .


Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Kshithij]

What is the point of WVR missile without BVR missile. With AESA radar, BVR is minimum requirements

About the internal bay having 2 A2G missile carrying ability, that is what you get for internal storage. If you want more then you have to use pylons

Rafale is not a strike fighter, but a balanced multi role combat fighter, that offers SC and canards to improve A2A performance.
And F22, J20 and Su 57 have dedicated WVR missile bays too. Just 2 missiles in A2G config is a poor load, be it for the F35 or AMCA

 

[zebra7]

There is so much wrong in your post, I don't even know where to start?

Russian fighters are known for high speeds and acceleration, which were key advantages of the Mig series for examples for decade (read up reports of western pilots praising the Mig 29 for example). But since fighter design evolved, new features to increase manuverability were added to standard airframe designs => TVC (F22, Flankers, Mig 35), or canards (Su 30MKI/MKM, European delta canards), or now movable LERX (Su 57, Airbus concept).

Contrary to US fighters that lost focus on flight performance and manuverability, in favour for BVR combat advantages, Russia always had and will remain with more focus on flight performance and manuverability!

And yes, AMCA according to IAFs requirements, was meant to provide a balanced multi role fighter, rather than the initial plans of MCA, as a strike fighter. That's exactly why flight performance and manuverability were added to make it more capable. That's why the performance specs and no mention of "A"dvanced features anymore, questions if the requirements were reduced again?

P.S. The biggest advantage of TVC is to increase turn ability at high speeds and not at low speeds, that's where canards come in (Su 35 / Su 34).

AMCA is needed and meant for the strike or to breach the enemy air defence in the early stages of war when the enemy air defence is intact. FGFA is meant for the air defence and air Superiority in the same way us have f35 and f22 respectively.

 

[Kshithij]

AMCA is needed and meant for the strike or to breach the enemy air defence in the early stages of war when the enemy air defence is intact. FGFA is meant for the air defence and air Superiority in the same way us have f35 and f22 respectively.

Tealth aircrafts are for air superiority and strike roles. AMCA is no exception. In air superiority also, the stealthier the plane is, lesser detection

 

[zebra7]

Tealth aircrafts are for air superiority and strike roles. AMCA is no exception. In air superiority also, the stealthier the plane is, lesser detection

Lol so f22 is for Strike role then what was the need for the f35.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

Lol so f22 is for Strike role then what was the need for the f35.

F 15C/D = F 22

F 16 C/D Blk 52+ // F 18 E/F = F 35

 

[nongaddarliberal]

AMCA is needed and meant for the strike or to breach the enemy air defence in the early stages of war when the enemy air defence is intact. FGFA is meant for the air defence and air Superiority in the same way us have f35 and f22 respectively.

FGFA is not coming, the deal has been scrapped. Our Air Force does not even consider it a proper stealth fighter jet. They are putting all their bets on the AMCA. It will be used both for air superiority and to destroy targets in contested airspace. And the only reason for the F 35 in the US is for budgetary reasons as the F 22 was too expensive to produce in large numbers. The USAF originally wanted 750 F 22's but that was struck down by Congress. There is nothing the F 35 can do that the F 22 can't (except land vertically for the F35B version). But the US wants thousands of 5th gen jets, so the F 35-F 22 combo was necessary.

 

[Kshithij]

Lol so f22 is for Strike role then what was the need for the f35.

Who told you that F22 was not for strike role? F35 is a cheaper alternative as F22 had major issue in maintenance and expense.