AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[kunal1123]

I am also confused about one thing : rafale has weight of 18 ton while take off (10.5ton empty + 4.5ton fuel + 3 ton cargo) and is powered by 50/75 kN M88. It can supercruise at 1.3-1.4 Mach at high altitude and 1.1 Mach at low altitude. How can 65/98 kN engine make AMCA weighing 25 ton take off weight suoercruise at 1.6 Mach at high ans 1.2 Mach at low altitude? The thrust to weight is the same for both. Also, with increasing size, drag will increase. AMCA can at best do 1.3/1 Mach at high/low altitude. The 1.6/1.2 seems too ambitious to me.

I was also wondering if India can develop a lighter jet like Rafale with kaveri engine since it has 55/81kN thrust which is higher than M88 50/75 kN? The extra weight of 200kg per engine can be compensated by 10% higher thrust. 400kg extra (2 engine) will not be much for 18 ton jet.

Any views on the above 2 points will be appreciated.

see Rafael with full internal fuel and 2500kg loaded(4 missile+one drop tank) weight around 18500kg with dry thrust of 2*50 That mean dry T/W = 0.551
for the AMCA's around 24000 with 65 dry thrust T/W = 0.552
so u see it can
nearly approx Rafael u but drag might be more because of size so at-least 68 kn dry thrust need but can be done by 65 too if they able to reduce weight.............

for your second point it can be done but take considerable time (at lest 6-8 year it is not just modification on lca )and money then and another production line so it is not fruitful when u have AMCA on table...

exp..

 

[kunal1123]

if they are able to make empty weight around 16-17 ton that will increase the T/W around 0.60 and will do the trick..........

 

[tsunami]

IAF AMCA over clouds, internal weapons bay deployed
( fan art by Parth)

 

[Vijyes]

if they are able to make empty weight around 16-17 ton that will increase the T/W around 0.60 and will do the trick..........

In drag, it is not the weight but size that matters. T/W is for engine force. That is almost similar for rafale and F414 powered AMCA. But the larger size that is needed for larger weight is what will increase drag. Since surface area is square while volume in cube. So, the size has to increase by 20% for 30% increase in weight. Now, depending on aerodynamic design it can be decreased but I am not sure if that will still help it increase the cruise speed to 1.6 Mach from 1.4 Mach. AMCA for example is 10% less tall than Rafale which significantly reduces drag but is 10% longer (length doesn't have much impact) and wider. Its wingspan is 10% smaller than Rafale. There are some good designing in AMCA which will definitely decrease drag (copied from F22 and FGFA) but the increased width of body will undo some of that gains from decreased height

I feel that 1.4 Mach is reasonable. More realistic is 1.3 Mach. It is still super cruise but not at 1.6 Mach which is over ambitious, hoping for 72/110kN engines (which no one makes including GE).

 

[kunal1123]

In drag, it is not the weight but size that matters. T/W is for engine force. That is almost similar for rafale and F414 powered AMCA. But the larger size that is needed for larger weight is what will increase drag. Since surface area is square while volume in cube. So, the size has to increase by 20% for 30% increase in weight. Now, depending on aerodynamic design it can be decreased but I am not sure if that will still help it increase the cruise speed to 1.6 Mach from 1.4 Mach. AMCA for example is 10% less tall than Rafale which significantly reduces drag but is 10% longer (length doesn't have much impact) and wider. Its wingspan is 10% smaller than Rafale. There are some good designing in AMCA which will definitely decrease drag (copied from F22 and FGFA) but the increased width of body will undo some of that gains from decreased height

I feel that 1.4 Mach is reasonable. More realistic is 1.3 Mach. It is still super cruise but not at 1.6 Mach which is over ambitious, hoping for 72/110kN engines (which no one makes including GE).

reduction in weight with same size will increase it t/w from .55 to .61 that is 10% increase and will reflect in speed. and u r right for 1.6 mac it need 72/110+ thay why i asked for f414epe/EDE dry thrust.
Can kaveri from current from 62+/95+ can increase to 70+/110+ ????????

 

[Vijyes]

reduction in weight with same size will increase it t/w from .55 to .61 that is 10% increase and will reflect in speed. and u r right for 1.6 mac it need 72/110+ thay why i asked for f414epe/EDE dry thrust.
Can kaveri from current from 62+/95+ can increase to 70+/110+ ????????

Firstly, for supercruise, we only need dry thrust of 72kN. After burner doesn't matter. Also, the reduction of weight may not be likely as.in addition to LCA, AMCA is bigger, has more fuel & payload, extra engine and additional dimensions and sensors. It will be 23-4 tonne as planned. The 72/110 kN is not possible even for GE. It is yet to make them and only is a dream. Expecting that from kaveri is not right.

We should expect 1.3/1.1 mach at high and low altitude. Even F35 can't supercruise (at high as well as low altitude). So, doing 1.3/1.1 is decent enough. Moreover, supercruise is not usable in dogfight or ground attack. It is only traveling between battleground and base that requires cruise. But as fuel gets empty, speed may increase. Fuel capacity is expected to be 5000kg for 5500km ferry distance (LCA has 2400kg for 3000km ferry distance). So, as fuel gets empt6it is possible to have higher supercruise

 

[akk]

I have never understood why can't we go with a 4.5 gen AMCA to begin with. use the technologies that we have including possibly kaveri whether 90 or 98kn. would probably be at par f18 if not better. that can later mature to 5th gen with improving technologies

 

[tsunami]

Firstly, for supercruise, we only need dry thrust of 72kN. After burner doesn't matter. Also, the reduction of weight may not be likely as.in addition to LCA, AMCA is bigger, has more fuel & payload, extra engine and additional dimensions and sensors. It will be 23-4 tonne as planned. The 72/110 kN is not possible even for GE. It is yet to make them and only is a dream. Expecting that from kaveri is not right.

We should expect 1.3/1.1 mach at high and low altitude. Even F35 can't supercruise (at high as well as low altitude). So, doing 1.3/1.1 is decent enough. Moreover, supercruise is not usable in dogfight or ground attack. It is only traveling between battleground and base that requires cruise. But as fuel gets empty, speed may increase. Fuel capacity is expected to be 5000kg for 5500km ferry distance (LCA has 2400kg for 3000km ferry distance). So, as fuel gets empt6it is possible to have higher supercruise

Who told you that for super cruise we need 72 Kn dry thrust?
Who told you AMCA is 23-24 tons aircraft? With how much weapons and how much fuel?
Who told you that fuel capacity is 5000 kg?
Anf who told you that with internal fuel of 2400kg fuel LCA ferry range is 3000 km? But even if LCA ferry range is 3000 km for 2400 kg internal fuel then how can you make a conclusion that with 5000kg fuel AMCA will be going for 5500 km??

I am really curious to know the answers?

 

[ersakthivel]

In drag, it is not the weight but size that matters. T/W is for engine force. That is almost similar for rafale and F414 powered AMCA. But the larger size that is needed for larger weight is what will increase drag. Since surface area is square while volume in cube. So, the size has to increase by 20% for 30% increase in weight. Now, depending on aerodynamic design it can be decreased but I am not sure if that will still help it increase the cruise speed to 1.6 Mach from 1.4 Mach. AMCA for example is 10% less tall than Rafale which significantly reduces drag but is 10% longer (length doesn't have much impact) and wider. Its wingspan is 10% smaller than Rafale. There are some good designing in AMCA which will definitely decrease drag (copied from F22 and FGFA) but the increased width of body will undo some of that gains from decreased height

I feel that 1.4 Mach is reasonable. More realistic is 1.3 Mach. It is still super cruise but not at 1.6 Mach which is over ambitious, hoping for 72/110kN engines (which no one makes including GE).

WHat is important is the Usable lift= Total Lift-drag equation,

Once again wing loading comes into play.

SO shape alone doesnt reduce usable lift.

AMCA is also said to be of low wing loading Tejas type

 

[ersakthivel]

I am also confused about one thing : rafale has weight of 18 ton while take off (10.5ton empty + 4.5ton fuel + 3 ton cargo) and is powered by 50/75 kN M88. It can supercruise at 1.3-1.4 Mach at high altitude and 1.1 Mach at low altitude. How can 65/98 kN engine make AMCA weighing 25 ton take off weight suoercruise at 1.6 Mach at high ans 1.2 Mach at low altitude? The thrust to weight is the same for both. Also, with increasing size, drag will increase. AMCA can at best do 1.3/1 Mach at high/low altitude. The 1.6/1.2 seems too ambitious to me.

I was also wondering if India can develop a lighter jet like Rafale with kaveri engine since it has 55/81kN thrust which is higher than M88 50/75 kN? The extra weight of 200kg per engine can be compensated by 10% higher thrust. 400kg extra (2 engine) will not be much for 18 ton jet.

Any views on the above 2 points will be appreciated.

Rafale cant supercruise with significant strike loads, only with light air to air config.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

From Aero India:

 

[Indx TechStyle]

DARE-developed Sub-systems for FGFA AMCA
Thanks @Shaitan.

 

[Vijyes]

DARE-developed Sub-systems for FGFA AMCA
Thanks @Shaitan.

The model in the screen appears to have larger canopy and better rear view than the miniature model on display. Why is this so? It isn't consistent.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

The model in the screen appears to have larger canopy and better rear view than the miniature model on display. Why is this so? It isn't consistent.

Cuz it's worth noticing some photos above in screen may be from earlier models.

Post #2371 actually contains new model.

 

[kunal1123]

any on any comment i am out of word..
.......................................................................................................................................................................

 

[singh100ful]

any on any comment i am out of word..
.......................................................................................................................................................................

The dates given for AMCA (2030 - 2035) are not the final dates.
It will only be clear in 3 years whether they will go ahead with the AMCA project or not owing to its complexities and RCS test with 1:1 model.

 

[Vijyes]

The dates given for AMCA (2030 - 2035) are not the final dates.
It will only be clear in 3 years whether they will go ahead with the AMCA project or not owing to its complexities and RCS test with 1:1 model.

That does not make sense. AMCA was started in 2008 itself. No one would cancel after 10 years. I guess it might be about engine for AMCA. Even if RCS is not low enough, it is still better than imported planes. But if the engine is imported, the whole point of having indigenous planes is meaningless. Just like LCA, they want yo decide on the engine of AMCA. The hard part of making a plane is not airframe but avionics and engine. AESA radar, engine and many other facilities will be needed. Making airframe once designed is easy. Even Pakistan can make them.

 

[Filtercoffee]

That does not make sense. AMCA was started in 2008 itself. No one would cancel after 10 years. I guess it might be about engine for AMCA. Even if RCS is not low enough, it is still better than imported planes. But if the engine is imported, the whole point of having indigenous planes is meaningless. Just like LCA, they want yo decide on the engine of AMCA. The hard part of making a plane is not airframe but avionics and engine. AESA radar, engine and many other facilities will be needed. Making airframe once designed is easy. Even Pakistan can make them.

Thats because they will focus on hand held drones, thats where they are, the aircrafts are slowly becoming rides and just ceremonial today. That is if they ever cancel.

 

[IndianHawk]

But if the engine is imported, the whole point of having indigenous planes is meaningless

Not meaningless buddy. It's very important for self reliance that we develop indegenious engine but if you look at economics today electronics sensors and weaponary make most of the costs of an aircraft and then there is maintainance.

So any degree of indegenisation is very very welcome.

Making airframe once designed is easy

Not for 5th gen as the airframe has to confirm to principle of stealth for that very advanced knowledge of available radars and detection rays is required. Also shaping and composite materials are required which are pretty advanced technologies.

Even Pakistan can make them.

Pakistan can't make shit!
They have no industrial capacity to be able to design even a car let alone an aircraft even a 3 rd gen jf17 is Chinese copy of an even older Russian design.

 

[Scrutator]

any on any comment i am out of word..
.......................................................................................................................................................................

Given that the production of AMCA is out to 2035 (nearly 20 years away), it not surprising if IAF and other armed forces sit down and discuss what the future battlefield would look like and device requirements accordingly. It's not too far fetched to imagine that in 20 years there're would be more 'unmanned' combat everything (planes to tanks to helos).
At the same time, the technologies that they're trying to evaluate (as part of the 3 year lead-in project) seems very sensible and relevant - as in stuff like stealth, serpentine intakes (and not to mention engines in diff project) etc would go into Ghatak/AURA too.
Let's hope things will speed up!