AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

Shekhar Singh

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
164
Likes
356
Country flag
@Annaa edited my post (surprise surprise).
Plz recheck.



1.37, 1.29 & 1.18 respectively. Ignore the 1st one tho... Mark2 will definitely have to carry atleast 6ton fuel for its more powerful engines, so its loaded weight would be between 18-19t.

For Mark1, I have come up with a calculation.
We know AMCA's empty weight =12t... external load = 6.5t... internal bay capacity = 2t... MTOW = ±25t... So internal fuel should be 25–(12+6.5+2) = 4.5t
So, the likely T/W value of AMCA Mark1 is 1.19! 🧐
No!..... 6.5t is total load out including 2t internal. Internal fuel is 6.5t
 

flanker99

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
173
Likes
675
Country flag
Okay this is a pure fanboy post with only personal wishes.
found this old pakfa artist concept that resembles some nextgen designs. anyone else think that AMCA design can be potentially evolved further to something like these without much changes to the fusealage for a amca mk3?
perhaps a render for this concept sometime in future.:megusta:
@Kuntal @Bleh

EtH3O_gXcAA7uMA1.jpeg


pakfa con.jpg
 

Annaa

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2021
Messages
56
Likes
79
Country flag
Okay this is a pure fanboy post with only personal wishes.
found this old pakfa artist concept that resembles some nextgen designs. anyone else think that AMCA design can be potentially evolved further to something like these without much changes to the fusealage for a amca mk3?
perhaps a render for this concept sometime in future.:megusta:
@Kuntal @Bleh

View attachment 80571

View attachment 80572
Bhai ye 2nd pic mein konsa Fighter jet h design ek dum bole toh jhatka h kya
 

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
1,942
Likes
5,409
Country flag
We should get the fact ,that neither amca mk1 nor mk2 ,will be main workhorse of iaf , if we look at the timeline of these program ,at that time requirements for a much advanced design of a heavy weight fighter will arise with 6 + generation capability , innovation in aircraft sector are diminishing , iaf should be a long term planner , we should look beyond oxygen based engines , in future we would require space ship in true sense , whole amca is for our capability till 2040, stealth should be increased , engine is one particular section where we should focus , not only turbo fan but rather nuclear based electric thruster engine , isro and drdo should start merging afrer 2030 , we can't always be late , south korea is a example we should look at.
 

Steven Rogers

NaPakiRoaster
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,460
Likes
2,160
Country flag
@Annaa edited my post (surprise surprise).
Plz recheck.



1.37, 1.29 & 1.18 respectively. Ignore the 1st one tho... Mark2 will definitely have to carry atleast 6ton fuel for its more powerful engines, so its loaded weight would be between 18-19t.

For Mark1, I have come up with a calculation.
We know AMCA's empty weight =12t... external load = 6.5t... internal bay capacity = 2t... MTOW = ±25t... So internal fuel should be 25–(12+6.5+2) = 4.5t
So, the likely T/W value of AMCA Mark1 is 1.19! 🧐
Dude their are only 6 hardpoints planned on the wings for AMCA,no way they ever will be carrying 6.5 tons external.
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
313
Likes
432
Country flag
We should get the fact ,that neither amca mk1 nor mk2 ,will be main workhorse of iaf , if we look at the timeline of these program ,at that time requirements for a much advanced design of a heavy weight fighter will arise with 6 + generation capability , innovation in aircraft sector are diminishing , iaf should be a long term planner , we should look beyond oxygen based engines , in future we would require space ship in true sense , whole amca is for our capability till 2040, stealth should be increased , engine is one particular section where we should focus , not only turbo fan but rather nuclear based electric thruster engine , isro and drdo should start merging afrer 2030 , we can't always be late , south korea is a example we should look at.
the one thing that Usa will definitely work for ngad is IR stealth because the only weakness(sort of) f35 has is ir signature,they must be planning something revolutionary for it,for iaf we should focus on amca mk1 &2 only,the fact you raised is okay but not at this time or till amca mk2 is inducted
 

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
1,942
Likes
5,409
Country flag
the one thing that us will definitely work for ngad is IR stealth because the only weakness(sort of) f35 has is ir signature,they must be planning something revolutionary for it,for iaf we should focus on amca mk1 &2 only,the fact you raised is okay but for at this time or till amca mk2 is inducted
Loosing fught of future is not a wise choice with humungous gdp we will have in 2040, we have to prepare for future conflict from now , otherwise we will be cursing ourselves , not full fledged program but a basic program
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
313
Likes
432
Country flag
Loosing fught of future is not a wise choice with humungous gdp we will have in 2040, we have to prepare for future conflict from now , otherwise we will be cursing ourselves , not full fledged program but a basic program
we will develop amca mk2(with planned tech) we will be able to stretch further to make it 6 gen but for now (tejas and amca)mk2 should be the precise focus
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,934
Likes
18,493
Country flag
Dude their are only 6 hardpoints planned on the wings for AMCA,no way they ever will be carrying 6.5 tons external.
Fair point, this requires some adjustments & explanation on the assumptions in my calculations @porky_kicker (6.3t external payload coming from IRDW, being not-so-reliable)

ADA didn't release any further data or specifications on AMCA after DefExpo-2018.
Brahmos-NG/RudraM-3 weighs 1500 kg each... Midboard, outboard & pod pylons yield another ton on each side.

Adjusted calculation:

MTOW = 25t
Clean takeoff weight = 20t
Empty weight = 12t
External payload = 5t
Internal payload = 2t

Note: As, clean wt + external payload = MTOW, it implies internal payload is included into the 20t. So...
Fuel weight = Clean wt – (Empty wt + internal payload) = 20t-(12+2) = 6ton

∴ T/W ratio of AMCA Mark1 =
(196/180) = 1.08




Hope that's satisfactory... Thank you @Steven Rogers @Shekhar Singh made a random statement, but adjusted numbers comes close to that.
 
Last edited:

Okabe Rintarou

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
646
Likes
2,360
Country flag
We should get the fact ,that neither amca mk1 nor mk2 ,will be main workhorse of iaf , if we look at the timeline of these program ,at that time requirements for a much advanced design of a heavy weight fighter will arise with 6 + generation capability , innovation in aircraft sector are diminishing , iaf should be a long term planner , we should look beyond oxygen based engines , in future we would require space ship in true sense , whole amca is for our capability till 2040, stealth should be increased , engine is one particular section where we should focus , not only turbo fan but rather nuclear based electric thruster engine , isro and drdo should start merging afrer 2030 , we can't always be late , south korea is a example we should look at.
6th gen won't have space capabilities. Maybe, just maybe, 7th Gen will. Even then, space fighters don't make much sense. Without air in space, you need radiators for heat sink purposes. There is a massive difference in requirements between a combat platform in atmosphere and a combat platform outside atmosphere. Its natural that separate combat platforms will be made for these two domains. More importantly, kinetic combat in Earth's sphere of influence is also likely to be avoided the way nuclear warfare is, due to Kessler Syndrome. Space combat, if it evolves, will happen likely due to space mining sector and the deep space economy emerging at the end of this century. Till then, we are stuck trying to protect our satellites from LEO to GSO, which means kinetic space combat doesn't make sense.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
646
Likes
2,360
Country flag
Fair point, this requires some adjustments & explanation on the assumptions in my calculations @porky_kicker (6.3t external payload coming from IRDW, being not-so-reliable)

ADA didn't release any further data or specifications on AMCA after DefExpo-2018.
Brahmos-NG/RudraM-3 weighs 1500 kg each... Midboard, outboard & pod pylons yield another ton on each side.

Adjusted calculation:

MTOW = 25t
Clean takeoff weight = 20t
Empty weight = 12t
External payload = 5t
Internal payload = 2t

Note: As, clean wt + external payload = MTOW, it implies internal payload is included into the 20t. So...
Fuel weight = Clean wt – (Empty wt + internal payload) = 20t-(12+2) = 6ton

∴ T/W ratio of AMCA Mark1 =
(196/180) = 1.08




Hope that's satisfactory... Thank you @Steven Rogers @Shekhar Singh made a random statement, but adjusted numbers comes close to that.
6 ton of fuel should give it an impressive combat radius. If enhanced by beast mode, it could have even more in drop tanks.
 

SARTHAK

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
313
Likes
432
Country flag
6th gen won't have space capabilities. Maybe, just maybe, 7th Gen will. Even then, space fighters don't make much sense. Without air in space, you need radiators for heat sink purposes. There is a massive difference in requirements between a combat platform in atmosphere and a combat platform outside atmosphere. Its natural that separate combat platforms will be made for these two domains. More importantly, kinetic combat in Earth's sphere of influence is also likely to be avoided the way nuclear warfare is, due to Kessler Syndrome. Space combat, if it evolves, will happen likely due to space mining sector and the deep space economy emerging at the end of this century. Till then, we are stuck trying to protect our satellites from LEO to GSO, which means kinetic space combat doesn't make sense.
btw some anti satellite development by russia
.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
4,934
Likes
18,493
Country flag
IMG_20210307_145514.png

AMCA Mark1 external hardpoints estimated load capacity (note: these don't add-up to external payload, but higher than that... they are must max load capacity for each hardpoint)

@porky_kicker you think this, as well as the above int.fuel & T/W values can be added to AMCA Mk1 thread for now?
6 ton of fuel should give it an impressive combat radius. If enhanced by beast mode, it could have even more in drop tanks.
AMCA should be able to take two 1700lt (1360 kg fuel) drop tanks lf MWF on both wings... Whether the internal bay can hold auxiliary droptanks is unknown.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top