AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
556
Likes
3,274
Country flag
Did ada consult with navy for naval amca version?

6500kg fuel and 6500 w load cannot take off with FULL frm carrier just like airforce version mig29 russia modified for carrier ,unless more powerfull engine used for naval.

Any expert answer pls....
The reason is more to do with the Internal Weapons Bay and the stealthy serpentine air intakes of the AMCA.

Those lead to pressure recovery losses which means lower thrust while taking off from the carrier. But for any carrier fighter, there can be no pressure recovery losses at the most crucial take-off phase. Hence, the AMCA design was unsuitable for a carrier.

Which is why ADA and the IN agreed upon a clean sheet TEDBF design which doesn't have serpentine intakes like the AMCA. The focus instead on the TEDBF is to have the best possible pressure recovery with minimum losses to provide the highest thrust possible while taking off. Hence no Internal Weapons Bay on the TEDBF either since it cannot be accommodated with somewhat straight air intakes.
 

kurup

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
567
Likes
1,279
Country flag
The reason is more to do with the Internal Weapons Bay and the stealthy serpentine air intakes of the AMCA.

Those lead to pressure recovery losses which means lower thrust while taking off from the carrier. But for any carrier fighter, there can be no pressure recovery losses at the most crucial take-off phase. Hence, the AMCA design was unsuitable for a carrier.

Which is why ADA and the IN agreed upon a clean sheet TEDBF design which doesn't have serpentine intakes like the AMCA. The focus instead on the TEDBF is to have the best possible pressure recovery with minimum losses to provide the highest thrust possible while taking off. Hence no Internal Weapons Bay on the TEDBF either since it cannot be accommodated with somewhat straight air intakes.
F35 has serpentine intakes & IWB . So how it overcome these ??
 

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
556
Likes
3,274
Country flag
F35 has serpentine intakes & IWB . So how it overcome these ??
Not sure how their intake was designed, but it is a Y-shaped intake (since the F-35 has a single engine). But keep in mind that the F-35 was from the VERY BEGINNING supposed to be an Air Force, Navy and Marine fighter. They had to develop a totally different F-35B variant for STOVL requirements, which has a very different propulsion system than the F-35A and F-35C.

Also keep in mind that the F-35C is a catapult launched fighter. It is NOT designed as a STOBAR fighter. CATOBAR fighters have the advantage of being propelled to take off speeds by the catapult which STOBAR fighters don't. STOBAR fighters need to use their own thrust to accelerate to take off speed.

The AMCA was designed keeping the IAF's stealth requirements in mind. The IN was only much later interested in a possible carrier AMCA-N variant. But stealth introduces weight penalties. The bigger issue was the serpentine intakes not being suitable for the pressure loss requirements of a carrier borne fighter.

This in fact was confirmed by the TEDBF Project Director in an interview to DDR. In that he clearly mentions that the TEDBF doesn't feature serpentine intakes since pressure recovery is the primary driving factor due to high thrust requirement at the time of take off from the carrier.
 

Suryavanshi

Cheeni KLPDhokebaaz
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
16,330
Likes
70,171
Exactly. F18SHs for the win.
But that would create another kind of Pigsty as a whole, our carriers are used to operating soviet jets and integrating another Jet with entirely different ecosystem will cause logistics nightmare, besides all the strings that come attached with American offensive tech.
Better we move all the Carrier capable planes to New Carrier and try to fill the remaining gap with NLCA till we have the homegrown option.
 

SKC

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,659
Likes
29,874
Country flag
But that would create another kind of Pigsty as a whole, our carriers are used to operating soviet jets and integrating another Jet with entirely different ecosystem will cause logistics nightmare, besides all the strings that come attached with American offensive tech.
Better we move all the Carrier capable planes to New Carrier and try to fill the remaining gap with NLCA till we have the homegrown option.
Wont this problem come with selection of Rafale too?

We don't have experience of operating the French jets from carrier either.
 

Suryavanshi

Cheeni KLPDhokebaaz
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
16,330
Likes
70,171
Wont this problem come with selection of Rafale too?

We don't have experience of operating the French jets from carrier either.
All our options result in the same dillema.

It's like a kid who enrolled in 2 years Aaakah IIT coaching and than shifted to FIIT JEE midway while paying the same amount as a two year course.
That's the level of fuck up.
 

Suryavanshi

Cheeni KLPDhokebaaz
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
16,330
Likes
70,171
Rafale option seems a bit better since we already use Them in air force.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,240
Likes
55,879
Country flag
Instead go for naval amca and convert into for airforce.
They need planes in 2030-35, not 2050-60.

A naval AMCA would need a far far more powerful engine that could not even be researched outside US, UK and France. Things are easier said than done.
Otherwise if it was all about planning, why India even wastes money on CIWS which may be useful for DEW. Off course, timelines of realisation of actual technologies is known by government.

Indian navy realised it and opted for a 4.5 generation TEDBF which is neither undercapable against MiG-29K like Tejas Mk2 nor would take 30 or even 50 years to develop like a naval AMCA.
why? need a exfart like u to comment ,i cannot express my views?
Views should be substantiated. Even though I don't support personal attacks, I'm afraid that @Lonewolf is far more competent than you in this regard at least.
 

Starlight

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
143
Likes
294
Country flag
Staying with the current GE engines which will be uprated to 110 - 120 KN is a better and only option in my opinion for the AMCA, Tejas and TEDBF. Rolls Royce will only complecate the engineering department and the engineers will have to work on different platforms for the same airframes which is a waste of time and effort.
 

johnj

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
1,776
Likes
2,672
Staying with the current GE engines which will be uprated to 110 - 120 KN is a better and only option in my opinion for the AMCA, Tejas and TEDBF. Rolls Royce will only complecate the engineering department and the engineers will have to work on different platforms for the same airframes which is a waste of time and effort.
Using US engines in large number of Jets is a very bad idea, considering US investment in china & US allay pak. Rolls Royce engines were also not a option. French is the only option, but they ask premium cost.
 

Starlight

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
143
Likes
294
Country flag
Using US engines in large number of Jets is a very bad idea, considering US investment in china & US allay pak. Rolls Royce engines were also not a option. French is the only option, but they ask premium cost.
Roll Royce ruined the HF-24 Marut by giving us under powered engines. Those guys are cheats to the core never trust the British. The guys who went to meet them in the UK are sell outs. Super hornets are coming to the Navy. It would be idiotic to buy any other engines since GE engines are on the SH. Snecma isn't as industrially advanced as GE so it's ideal for us to buy and collaborate with USA for military equipment. Pakistan isn't buying us high tech since they are very broke and China (1by2) is taking over Pakistan overtly by acquiring bases and installments all over Pakistan. They might be planing this with the military of India covertly. The standoff was a show for the Pakis and I believe it's a joint effort to take over Pakistan. Don't forget their Muslim isolation in their own country.
 

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
18,240
Likes
55,879
Country flag
Using US engines in large number of Jets is a very bad idea, considering US investment in china & US allay pak. Rolls Royce engines were also not a option. French is the only option, but they ask premium cost.
Buying off shelf from US is more effective than developing one with Britain.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, UK is more pro Pakistan and pro China than US is.
 

Arpuster

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2020
Messages
160
Likes
373
Country flag
Roll Royce ruined the HF-24 Marut by giving us under powered engines. Those guys are cheats to the core never trust the British. The guys who went to meet them in the UK are sell outs. Super hornets are coming to the Navy. It would be idiotic to buy any other engines since GE engines are on the SH. Snecma isn't as industrially advanced as GE so it's ideal for us to buy and collaborate with USA for military equipment. Pakistan isn't buying us high tech since they are very broke and China (1by2) is taking over Pakistan overtly by acquiring bases and installments all over Pakistan. They might be planing this with the military of India covertly. The standoff was a show for the Pakis and I believe it's a joint effort to take over Pakistan. Don't forget their Muslim isolation in their own country.
We chose underpowered engines for Marut and those were of Bristol before it was bought by Rolls Royce. Bristol also offered to develop suitable engine for Marut but for good sum of money. We didn’t accept it and made mistake. The only country which has transferred the technology of jet engine ever in history is actually Britain. They transferred it to US, France and even USSR.
 

johnj

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
1,776
Likes
2,672
Roll Royce ruined the HF-24 Marut by giving us under powered engines. Those guys are cheats to the core never trust the British. The guys who went to meet them in the UK are sell outs. Super hornets are coming to the Navy. It would be idiotic to buy any other engines since GE engines are on the SH. Snecma isn't as industrially advanced as GE so it's ideal for us to buy and collaborate with USA for military equipment. Pakistan isn't buying us high tech since they are very broke and China (1by2) is taking over Pakistan overtly by acquiring bases and installments all over Pakistan. They might be planing this with the military of India covertly. The standoff was a show for the Pakis and I believe it's a joint effort to take over Pakistan. Don't forget their Muslim isolation in their own country.
We are already done & doing it, and we lost 1 decade of lca development due to collaboration with USA. We are buying 100s of GE engine.
When Pak brought US weapons by paying full cost ? Its either free or discount.
If India send troops deep into pak, US attack India with full force, becz Pak is US allay, and India use US weapons against US allay, US sanctions us. But we can use US weapons against China & US provide support.
If what ever you said is true, the no more US engine, since you are exaggerating & forget about Pak nukes, its is good to buy ge engines & jv with Snecma. Current US gov reduced chances of SH deal.
No wounder France asking 6 billion and future/life of AMCA depend on French. Now this thread [AMCA] stuck with French JV & 2 sqn of AMCA and goes for another 3~5 years<normally>.
Pakistan is hard to fail becz she is protected by US, China & Saudi - 3 most powerful countries & these countries don't care about pakistanis.
 

Starlight

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
143
Likes
294
Country flag
We are already done & doing it, and we lost 1 decade of lca development due to collaboration with USA. We are buying 100s of GE engine.
When Pak brought US weapons by paying full cost ? Its either free or discount.
If India send troops deep into pak, US attack India with full force, becz Pak is US allay, and India use US weapons against US allay, US sanctions us. But we can use US weapons against China & US provide support.
If what ever you said is true, the no more US engine, since you are exaggerating & forget about Pak nukes, its is good to buy ge engines & jv with Snecma. Current US gov reduced chances of SH deal.
No wounder France asking 6 billion and future/life of AMCA depend on French. Now this thread [AMCA] stuck with French JV & 2 sqn of AMCA and goes for another 3~5 years<normally>.
Pakistan is hard to fail becz she is protected by US, China & Saudi - 3 most powerful countries & these countries don't care about pakistanis.
This is true, Pakistan is supported by the U.S. overtly but we have a history of CIA and RAW collaboration since the 50s. There were hard choices made and many ppl lost but the undercurrent here clearly shows how deep the India USA connection is. Forget about China helping them most of the equipment given is tagged and is monitored by a joint team ( India and China). We are covertly collaborating with Pakistan for bringing the old nation as it was again. Bangladesh included. All the incidents are a show for military progression in tech and practice. Snecma is a great choice but you see we already have GE engines in the LCA series and AMCA mk1 too, why trouble the engineers with different types, which I believe they will handle with ease but when we have a uniform platform to work on the availability rate will increase ten fold. This is my opinion.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top