AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

tsunami

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,603
Likes
5,240
Country flag
To be seen.

But remember, the MiG-29 has a ferry range of 1,500 km without external fuel tanks, with similar internal fuel of 4ton... AMCA has better engines, better aerodynamics & will face no drag penalty at max internal bombload of 1.8ton.
Even being very conservative, I don't see why it won't fly comfortably fly 1400km without refueling.
Tejas Mk1 have ferry range of over 1700km and IAF never been happy with that. A minimum 2k Km ferry range will be required for a medium weight class fighter of future. Both LCA and Mig29 can carry external fuel tanks but AMCA won't do it for stealth missions.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,523
Likes
15,681
Country flag
Tejas Mk1 have ferry range of over 1700km and IAF never been happy with that. A minimum 2k Km ferry range will be required for a medium weight class fighter of future. Both LCA and Mig29 can carry external fuel tanks but AMCA won't do it for stealth missions.
Bro, you're misinterpreting numbers again.

Tejas' ferry range is not its combat range. It's with 3 droptanks & reduces to half when they add weaponary below other pylons... But Mig-29's clean config & AMCA fully internal loaded bomb-truck config are similarly draggy (1.9t extra weight will be nullified by better aerodynamic & engines in AMCA). That's why I compared them.

If stealthy droptanks are made available in future, then AMCA will do 50% more... AMCA is F-18 class with MTOW of 25t+ & will easily carry those 1700lt droptanks of MWF under wings, that's 2700kg more fuel.
 
Last edited:

tsunami

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,603
Likes
5,240
Country flag
Bro, you're misinterpreting numbers again.

Tejas' ferry range is not its combat range. It's with 3 droptanks & reduces to half when they add weaponary below other pylons... But Mig-29's clean config & AMCA fully internal loaded bomb-truck config are similarly draggy (1.9t extra weight will be nullified by better aerodynamic & engines in AMCA). That's why I compared them.

If stealthy droptanks are made available in future, then AMCA will do 50% more... AMCA is F-18 class with MTOW of 25t+ & will easily carry those 1700lt droptanks of MWF under wings, that's 2700kg more fuel.
Bro... You are not understanding the numbers here coz you are only thinking from your end not even trying to understand what I am saying.
Ferry range is calculated with maximum internal fuel.

For Tejas Internal Fuel at 2450Kg with Gross weight 9800 (Which include 2 WVR missiles, So for calculations 9600 kg).

Internal fuel fraction ~ 25.5% and ferry range almost 1800 km

For Mig -29 Internal Fuel at 3.5t with Gross weight 14.9t

Internal fuel fraction ~ 23.5% and ferry range almost 1500 km

Now let's assume at 12t empty weight and 3.8t internal fuel AMCA is approx 16.3-16.5t gross weight.

Internal fuel fraction ~ 23.2% and ferry range almost 1500 km

Problem is with this AMCA is going to have lowest internal fuel in modern history. Why on earth IAF would allow that.


Now F-22 with 8.2t internal fuel and 29.4t gross weight

Internal fuel fraction ~ 28.5%. Ferry range on internal fuel I couldn't find.

Still combat radius is only 750 KM with only 8 missile (6+2) and that to with 2 external tanks.

Do you really think AMCA with just 23% internal fuel will even be able to touch 450 - 500 km combat radius. no.

That is why I do not think it will be as low as 3.8t internal fuel.

My assumption for AMCA is 12t empty 5t+ Internal fuel will make it's gross weight approx. 17.5t+.

This will make it's internal fuel fraction in range of F-22 at least. (Remember even F-22 is considered to have short legs by some).
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,523
Likes
15,681
Country flag
Bro... You are not understanding the numbers here coz you are only thinking from your end not even trying to understand what I am saying.
Ferry range is calculated with maximum internal fuel.
Sure it's me who is doing that, and not yourself?

Max possible distance a plane can fly without refueling is "ferry range". Clean config range is useless data.

Problem is with this AMCA is going to have lowest internal fuel in modern history. Why on earth IAF would allow that.
Mig-29 (clean config)
Int. Fuel: ±4t (UPG version)
Gross weight: 15t
Range: 1500km

AMCA (4×450kg HSLD bombs internally loaded)
Int. Fuel: 4t
Gross weight: 16t (+bomb) 18t
Range: 1200km (Conservative estimate, not accounting for AMCA's superior aerodynamics meant to achieve supercruise & more fuel efficient engines).

F22 has gas guzzling engines that lose thrust due to rectangular nozzles, that's why it needs higher fuel fraction... If you're bringing in other models then you have to consider all their variables too, not just the few you pick!

IAF expects AMCA to fill the niche of upgraded Mig-29 & AMCA can achieve the range with max. internal weapons load, what Mig-29UPG can fly with no weapons. IAF knows that fact.
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,062
Likes
3,680
Country flag
Just like LCA programme resulted into LCA MK1, LCA MK1A, LCA MK2, TEDBF/ORCA aircrafts, AMCA programme will also see a family of aircrafts like AMCA MK1, AMCA MK2 and possibly AHCA as Su-30 replacement (from 2040 onwards).

ADA Director has stated that critical technologies like geometric stealth shaping, S-intake, diamond shaped trapezoidal wings, delta wings, radome, AESA, internal weapons bay, metamaterial based RAM coatings, thrust vectoring control, Digital as well as optical fly-by wire, IRST etc. are matured. These technologies can be put in different hybrid configuration as per user requirement .
For example: TEDBF is hybrid of LCA (delta wings) + AMCA (fuselage - internal weapons bay).
In future, we might see an aircraft hybrid AMCA of Ghatak UCAV.

Only thing to be developed is the engine. On that front DRDO is three considering two possiblities:
1. Refining Kaveri on its own to acheive the desired thrust levels of 90 KN.
2. JV with Safran to help in the developement of 110 kN engine for AMCA. The primary goal is to acheive higher thrust levels.
3. JV with Rolls Royce to develop a next generation Variable cycle engine (VCE). Rolls Royce has previously worked with Pratt & Witney to develop VCE. This engine will be a much higher thrust of 140 KN nd NAE is looking towards RR to develop this type of engine for their Tempest programme.

DRDO is detting up an engine complex later this year. Already yechnologies like single crystal blades, LSZ/YSZ based thermal barrier coating, dual throat thrust vectoring nozzles are developed for this regard.
 

FalconSlayers

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
3,234
Likes
9,298
Country flag
Main aim of having AMCA is to do special ops and strikes and attacks and return undetected. 4 hardpoints are best for balakot like ops where stealth and less drag will make the ops like butter and during wartime the fighter can use external pylons along with internal hardpoints. Afaik HAL is making 2 AMCA variants, 1 is stealth and the other 1 is non-Stealth.
 

DerBronzeLord

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
504
Likes
1,794
Country flag
I have a genuine question (Please remember that I am a noob and I am unaware of the finer details of aviation). I recently read that France is jumping straight from a 4+ gen fighter(Rafale) to a 6th gen fighter. Considering that India also has a 4+ gen fighter, why can't india do the same?
 

flanker99

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
103
Likes
388
Country flag
Main aim of having AMCA is to do special ops and strikes and attacks and return undetected. 4 hardpoints are best for balakot like ops where stealth and less drag will make the ops like butter and during wartime the fighter can use external pylons along with internal hardpoints. Afaik HAL is making 2 AMCA variants, 1 is stealth and the other 1 is non-Stealth.
Both will be stealth but mark 1 will have old engines and will be less advanced than mk2
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,523
Likes
15,681
Country flag
I recently read that France is jumping straight from a 4+ gen fighter(Rafale) to a 6th gen fighter. Considering that India also has a 4+ gen fighter, why can't india do the same?
We are, kindof. Our AMCA Mark1 is techwise 5th gen but without supermaneuverability & supercruise due to the F414 engine, but Mark2 is 5.5th gen planned to have unmanned wingman, operate as drone swarm mothership & be optionally manned... If we can bridge the tech gap. DE countermeasures & next gen EW suite would make it (or it's sucessor true 6th gen).

Rafale is borderline 5th gen. Only lacks stealth, supercruise & supermaneuverability... that too almost borderlining on. Plus it's a risky approach there taking, 50:50 chances. Let's see if they succeed.
 

FalconSlayers

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
3,234
Likes
9,298
Country flag
We are, kindof. Our AMCA Mark1 is techwise 5th gen but without supermaneuverability & supercruise due to the F414 engine, but Mark2 is 5.5th gen planned to have unmanned wingman, operate as drone swarm mothership & be optionally manned... If we can bridge the tech gap. DE countermeasures & next gen EW suite would make it (or it's sucessor true 6th gen).

Rafale is borderline 5th gen. Only lacks stealth, supercruise & supermaneuverability... that too almost borderlining on. Plus it's a risky approach there taking, 50:50 chances. Let's see if they succeed.
Mk1 is 5.5 gen while Mk2 is 6th gen according to Airchief.
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,579
Likes
3,029
Country flag
Mk1 is 5.5 gen while Mk2 is 6th gen according to Airchief.
No no not at all. Mk-1 isn't true fifth gen. It is more like 4.9+ gen. Mk.2 is planned to be 5.5th gen, I.e. 6th gen concepts like optionally manned capability, 6th gen avionics, DEWs, DEW based CMs, VCE engine, unmanned wingman, etc, in a 5th gen airframe.

Am I right, @Bleh?
 

Killbot

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
1,579
Likes
3,029
Country flag
Also, does anyone know if AMCA will have GaN based radar? Or will it be GaAs.

Also please explain the avionics package on the Mk.1, if you can...
 

Cruise missile

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 30, 2020
Messages
1,742
Likes
9,785
Country flag
No no not at all. Mk-1 isn't true fifth gen. It is more like 4.9+ gen. Mk.2 is planned to be 5.5th gen, I.e. 6th gen concepts like optionally manned capability, 6th gen avionics, DEWs, DEW based CMs, VCE engine, unmanned wingman, etc, in a 5th gen airframe.

Am I right, @Bleh?
Mk 1 is 5th gen jet features such as unmanned wingman and optionally manned can be incorporated in mk1 also.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top