AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,503
Likes
7,204
Country flag
Unlike china and India , turkey is producing major parts of military and civilian engines for decades!
The ones came from abroad to work in engine projects were engineers of major western engine producers.
China eventually produces its engines , we can also spare china from that list.
Additionally, Türkiye is getting support from Ukrainian engine conpany ivchenko.
To produce components doesn't mean you have the knowledge to produce the whole engine, and fine tune it !
I have a doubt, for exemple, that uncle Sam gave Turkey the agreement to produce the F110 single cristal blades. It is one key among several others for a powerfull jet engine.

Turkey struggle to produce its main battle tank engine, so what about another piece of cake that is a fighter engine ? ....
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
6,503
Likes
7,204
Country flag
For Turkey, it is another story. No matter how many problems they have with US and Europe, they are still a member of NATO. Unlike Chinese, they don't need to produce everything themselves, they have allies to rely on.

They could be another "South Korea" in Europe.
You are right.
But It is a strange NATO member, purchasing russian SAM when main NATO member said it's not possible and a potential threat to the main west air system (F35)...
I think Turkey is now seen in NATO as Saudi Arabia was seen as middle east ally.... (september the 11th).
 

tfxkaanf23

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2024
Messages
205
Likes
165
Country flag
To produce components doesn't mean you have the knowledge to produce the whole engine, and fine tune it !
I have a doubt, for exemple, that uncle Sam gave Turkey the agreement to produce the F110 single cristal blades. It is one key among several others for a powerfull jet engine.

Turkey struggle to produce its main battle tank engine, so what about another piece of cake that is a fighter engine ? ....
Producing components does not make you engine producer. What does it give you ? It gives you technology to produce parts of your own engine in same quality as western countries. You focus on design and other areas of engine that you need to develop on your own.
For example, You don't need technology to inertial welding for your own compressor parts, you have that technology. You will design new compressor with different dimensions. You will use same machines as you use while producing parts for western engine
 

slayingheaven

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
199
Likes
735
Country flag
Can anyone have a definite answer of what type of Intakes are the most stealthiest? Is it F-22 type Caret or F-35 DSI type or YF-23 Gauzing Panels type. I know out of all three DSI advantages are easy manufacturing, some minute reduction in weight and easy maintenance unlike Caret or Gauzing Panels.

But If I want to make stealthiest no compromise plane what would be best choice with lowest RCS and not caring about top speed? Is it DSI or Caret or Bleed-Air. I researched in lot of forums and I got mixed answers. Some say DSI is more stealthy due to absence of discontinuity. Some say Caret intakes are as stealthy as DSI intakes that F-22 split plates gap is a radar trap that utmost care is taken to not let any incoming radar waves out. Some say F-35 in frontal profile is stealthier than F-22 in terms of shaping. I remove Gauzing panels as Northrop ultimately opted for DSI in supposedly future versions. So what is best?

Is F-35 more stealthy than F-22 in frontal RCS? Because if you look at 6th-Gen concepts, the French led FCAS latest design has Caret Intakes and not DSI. But British led GCAP has DSI Intakes. Perhaps most confusing is American one. Concepts show neither Caret nor DSI intakes.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,056
Likes
2,353
Country flag
Lol what work on ws 15 began way back in 2004 it was fired for first time. Stop smoking
Well, you just don't understand the R&D procedure of a complex modern military machine.
The works of so called WS-15 did in 1990s were pre-development research of the materials, electronic components by other industrial departments for next generation jet engine. These projects are natural development demand of these departments: once your current technologies are matured, you have to find new jobs for your scientists. What if there is no WS-15 project? Simple, check what Americans are doing and ask your own scientists to development the new material to narrow the gap with US.

Only when these new technologies were ready, you would consider the development of the new jet engines. In this case, the Chinese scientists started their work on designing. Then their work was simulated on computer to check the theoretical performance based on the design. If it is ok, the project was then APPROVED and the fund was given.

The core engine for the WS15 engine was first tested in April 2005
WS15 (globalsecurity.org)
 

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
655
Likes
3,665
Country flag
Can anyone have a definite answer of what type of Intakes are the most stealthiest? Is it F-22 type Caret or F-35 DSI type or YF-23 Gauzing Panels type. I know out of all three DSI advantages are easy manufacturing, some minute reduction in weight and easy maintenance unlike Caret or Gauzing Panels.

But If I want to make stealthiest no compromise plane what would be best choice with lowest RCS and not caring about top speed? Is it DSI or Caret or Bleed-Air. I researched in lot of forums and I got mixed answers. Some say DSI is more stealthy due to absence of discontinuity. Some say Caret intakes are as stealthy as DSI intakes that F-22 split plates gap is a radar trap that utmost care is taken to not let any incoming radar waves out. Some say F-35 in frontal profile is stealthier than F-22 in terms of shaping. I remove Gauzing panels as Northrop ultimately opted for DSI in supposedly future versions. So what is best?

Is F-35 more stealthy than F-22 in frontal RCS? Because if you look at 6th-Gen concepts, the French led FCAS latest design has Caret Intakes and not DSI. But British led GCAP has DSI Intakes. Perhaps most confusing is American one. Concepts show neither Caret nor DSI intakes.
DSI.
 

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
655
Likes
3,665
Country flag
But still not able to make engine.
Maintaining a turbofan engine is in itself quite a complex task.

Building a turbofan to spec, which is basically laid out by the OEM (like Saturn or RR) basically requires careful adherence to processes and procedures that are laid out by them. Even then they retain the know-how on design and share the know-how related to how to build.

That will cover the 80% of the design of the turbofan engine. Which is where India currently is in many aspects of the engine design.
 

Super Flanker

Aviation and Defence Enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2021
Messages
5,063
Likes
12,090
Country flag
The AMCA doesnt have internal bays as big as F 35s. The F35 can carry 2*1000kg bombs and 2* LRAAM. AMCA can carry only 2*500kg bombs and 2*LRAAMS. Hence it is highly unlikely for AMCA to carry 6 missiles with modifications in future. AMCA is not designed to hit hardened bunkers like F35 but to take out enemy radars stealthily and shoot at AAMs at enemy aircrafts from a long distance, turn and run away.
I think if you could make a version of the Astra with folding fins, then you could fit 6 of those without any modifications.
When designing the AMCA, I am sure the engineers designed the aircraft around the internal bay, and not the other way around. Basically you should design and build around the bay. You may design the aircraft's fuselage first and later go to design the internal bay only to find out that the bay won't be spacious enough or you may run into some other issues.

Right now, we are sure that the AMCA Mk-1 will be able to carry 4 AAM. So no discussion about the internal loadout of Mk-1. We are focusing on Mk-2.

How can a payload of 6 AAM in the Mk-2 come into the picture from the former Mk-1's 4 AAM loadout?
1. We make a miniaturised version of the Astra which will have nearly the same range as the baseline one. I am advocating something in the lines of what was done with the Brahmos NG. What is Brahmos NG? NG stands for next generation and Brahmos NG is a scaled down version of baseline brahmos but while it's scaled down, it will still have the same speed and range as baseline brahmos.
Read this excerpt from an article (I will provide link)👇🏻
"The BrahMos-NG (Next Generation) will be a scaled-down variant of the current BrahMos missile. Compared to the present BrahMos, it is anticipated to be 50% lighter, three meters smaller, and have the same 290-kilometer range and Mach 3.5 speed."

So I don't see why we cannot do the same with the Astra BVRAAM. We can make an Astra NG, basically a miniaturised version of the baseline Astra which will be smaller, lighter but will have the same speed and range as the original Astra.
2. We make the Bays more bigger in width, depth and length (overall size). I think the size of bay may become so large that the Airframe may have to undergo a size change. I think the basic design may be retained but the size will be increased. I mean a bigger Airframe can obviously field a larger bay. Basically what I think the AMCA MK-2 will be is basically it will have the same design as mk-1 albeit a bit larger. I can give you an example.

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This may help us to determine what the AMCA MK-2 will look like.

Super Hornet: It's basically an evolution of the original F/A-18 produced by the US for its military and allies to which it has been exported.
img_44-2_90.jpg


main-qimg-2f54130dd50490fcfd1ad0efb0f53ea7.gif

The SH brought upon several improvements and basically it's better than the baseline Hornet in every way that you can think of. Endurance, payload capacity, avionics, range etc. Sometimes bigger is always better.

This is what I think the AMCA Mk-2 will be. We will do with the AMCA MK-2 what the designers of F/A-18 SH did, basically enlarge. So AMCA Mk-2 will look visually identical to Mk-1 but it will be larger to facilitate a larger bay which in turn will facilitate more Weopons, better avionics, range etc. I think size should be increased and not try and pack each and everything in the same airframe, it will be prove to be counter productive.
3. Like originally said by many members here and even by you, we can Astra with foldable fins.
4. We can do all of the above and it will be better to do all of the above.
 

Satish Sharma

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2023
Messages
1,963
Likes
5,427
Country flag
The AMCA doesnt have internal bays as big as F 35s. The F35 can carry 2*1000kg bombs and 2* LRAAM. AMCA can carry only 2*500kg bombs and 2*LRAAMS. Hence it is highly unlikely for AMCA to carry 6 missiles with modifications in future. AMCA is not designed to hit hardened bunkers like F35 but to take out enemy radars stealthily and shoot at AAMs at enemy aircrafts from a long distance, turn and run away.
Amca mk1 is supposed to carry 5.5m rudra missile internally right ?
 

slayingheaven

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
199
Likes
735
Country flag
I think there's too much emphasis on America-Esque obsession with Air-to-Ground capabilities in defense circles. It's not like we're planning daily bombing runs like the US used to do on third world countries. But hey, our adversaries have serious air power and nukes, so we need to prioritize securing the skies.
The AMCA should pose credible deterrence to enemy planes first and foremost while it's Air-To-Ground capability is something more of a piggyback capability as it is. While the Ghatak Stealth Bomber is good for ground attacks, I believe focusing too much on Air-to-Ground could compromise the AMCA's air-to-air capabilities, which are crucial for our defensive posture. If the need arises for ground strikes or SEAD, flying wing drones could handle those roles effectively without sacrificing the AMCA's primary mission.
Without securing Air Space it doesn't matter for AMCA to have 6 ton payload or 60 ton payload and all such talk is meaningless. I rather have it more internal fuel than such "Muh Payload".
 

Blademaster

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
9,653
Likes
27,896
When designing the AMCA, I am sure the engineers designed the aircraft around the internal bay, and not the other way around. Basically you should design and build around the bay. You may design the aircraft's fuselage first and later go to design the internal bay only to find out that the bay won't be spacious enough or you may run into some other issues.

Right now, we are sure that the AMCA Mk-1 will be able to carry 4 AAM. So no discussion about the internal loadout of Mk-1. We are focusing on Mk-2.

How can a payload of 6 AAM in the Mk-2 come into the picture from the former Mk-1's 4 AAM loadout?
1. We make a miniaturised version of the Astra which will have nearly the same range as the baseline one. I am advocating something in the lines of what was done with the Brahmos NG. What is Brahmos NG? NG stands for next generation and Brahmos NG is a scaled down version of baseline brahmos but while it's scaled down, it will still have the same speed and range as baseline brahmos.
Read this excerpt from an article (I will provide link)👇🏻
"The BrahMos-NG (Next Generation) will be a scaled-down variant of the current BrahMos missile. Compared to the present BrahMos, it is anticipated to be 50% lighter, three meters smaller, and have the same 290-kilometer range and Mach 3.5 speed."

So I don't see why we cannot do the same with the Astra BVRAAM. We can make an Astra NG, basically a miniaturised version of the baseline Astra which will be smaller, lighter but will have the same speed and range as the original Astra.
2. We make the Bays more bigger in width, depth and length (overall size). I think the size of bay may become so large that the Airframe may have to undergo a size change. I think the basic design may be retained but the size will be increased. I mean a bigger Airframe can obviously field a larger bay. Basically what I think the AMCA MK-2 will be is basically it will have the same design as mk-1 albeit a bit larger. I can give you an example.

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This may help us to determine what the AMCA MK-2 will look like.

Super Hornet: It's basically an evolution of the original F/A-18 produced by the US for its military and allies to which it has been exported.
View attachment 257908

View attachment 257909
The SH brought upon several improvements and basically it's better than the baseline Hornet in every way that you can think of. Endurance, payload capacity, avionics, range etc. Sometimes bigger is always better.

This is what I think the AMCA Mk-2 will be. We will do with the AMCA MK-2 what the designers of F/A-18 SH did, basically enlarge. So AMCA Mk-2 will look visually identical to Mk-1 but it will be larger to facilitate a larger bay which in turn will facilitate more Weopons, better avionics, range etc. I think size should be increased and not try and pack each and everything in the same airframe, it will be prove to be counter productive.
3. Like originally said by many members here and even by you, we can Astra with foldable fins.
4. We can do all of the above and it will be better to do all of the above.
SH is basically a new plane, a new design. McDouglas hoodwinked Congress when they assured that it would be based on the same design but improved when in reality it was a complete new design. It should have received a different number but didn't. It may be bigger but it was a turkey. Its endurance was less than the OH considering pound for pound. Yes the SH did have a larger range but only 200 miles when it carried 1/3 larger fuel capacity than the original. The original had a better thrust to weight ratio than the SH.
 

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
655
Likes
3,665
Country flag
When designing the AMCA, I am sure the engineers designed the aircraft around the internal bay, and not the other way around. Basically you should design and build around the bay. You may design the aircraft's fuselage first and later go to design the internal bay only to find out that the bay won't be spacious enough or you may run into some other issues.

Right now, we are sure that the AMCA Mk-1 will be able to carry 4 AAM. So no discussion about the internal loadout of Mk-1. We are focusing on Mk-2.

How can a payload of 6 AAM in the Mk-2 come into the picture from the former Mk-1's 4 AAM loadout?
1. We make a miniaturised version of the Astra which will have nearly the same range as the baseline one. I am advocating something in the lines of what was done with the Brahmos NG. What is Brahmos NG? NG stands for next generation and Brahmos NG is a scaled down version of baseline brahmos but while it's scaled down, it will still have the same speed and range as baseline brahmos.
Read this excerpt from an article (I will provide link)👇🏻
"The BrahMos-NG (Next Generation) will be a scaled-down variant of the current BrahMos missile. Compared to the present BrahMos, it is anticipated to be 50% lighter, three meters smaller, and have the same 290-kilometer range and Mach 3.5 speed."

So I don't see why we cannot do the same with the Astra BVRAAM. We can make an Astra NG, basically a miniaturised version of the baseline Astra which will be smaller, lighter but will have the same speed and range as the original Astra.
2. We make the Bays more bigger in width, depth and length (overall size). I think the size of bay may become so large that the Airframe may have to undergo a size change. I think the basic design may be retained but the size will be increased. I mean a bigger Airframe can obviously field a larger bay. Basically what I think the AMCA MK-2 will be is basically it will have the same design as mk-1 albeit a bit larger. I can give you an example.

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This may help us to determine what the AMCA MK-2 will look like.

Super Hornet: It's basically an evolution of the original F/A-18 produced by the US for its military and allies to which it has been exported.
View attachment 257908

View attachment 257909
The SH brought upon several improvements and basically it's better than the baseline Hornet in every way that you can think of. Endurance, payload capacity, avionics, range etc. Sometimes bigger is always better.

This is what I think the AMCA Mk-2 will be. We will do with the AMCA MK-2 what the designers of F/A-18 SH did, basically enlarge. So AMCA Mk-2 will look visually identical to Mk-1 but it will be larger to facilitate a larger bay which in turn will facilitate more Weopons, better avionics, range etc. I think size should be increased and not try and pack each and everything in the same airframe, it will be prove to be counter productive.
3. Like originally said by many members here and even by you, we can Astra with foldable fins.
4. We can do all of the above and it will be better to do all of the above.
If you enlarge the AMCA design, then the requirement of the max dry thrust for the engine also goes up.

Remember, they have calculated that for the AMCA to supercruise, it needs engines that can generate ~ 220 kN of thrust in afterburner (but the engines will be used without afterburner for supercruise)

That is driving the AMCA Mk2 engine requirements. Now, if the AMCA Mk2 were to be enlarged, the 110 kN afterburning thrust will also need to be significantly enhanced to at least 125-130 kN afterburning thrust.
 

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
655
Likes
3,665
Country flag
SH is basically a new plane, a new design. McDouglas hoodwinked Congress when they assured that it would be based on the same design but improved when in reality it was a complete new design. It should have received a different number but didn't. It may be bigger but it was a turkey. Its endurance was less than the OH considering pound for pound. Yes the SH did have a larger range but only 200 miles when it carried 1/3 larger fuel capacity than the original. The original had a better thrust to weight ratio than the SH.
The Super Hornet bests the Hornet in most parameters. Both were excellent nose pointers at high AoA, but not good in a 2 circle fight or even a one circle fight. Both were limited to 7.68 Gs max G load due to the wing folding requirement.

Most importantly, the Super Hornet has better FCS with auto recovery modes, an AESA that is amongst the best in the world and larger payload.
 

slayingheaven

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
199
Likes
735
Country flag
If you enlarge the AMCA design, then the requirement of the max dry thrust for the engine also goes up.

Remember, they have calculated that for the AMCA to supercruise, it needs engines that can generate ~ 220 kN of thrust in afterburner (but the engines will be used without afterburner for supercruise)

That is driving the AMCA Mk2 engine requirements. Now, if the AMCA Mk2 were to be enlarged, the 110 kN afterburning thrust will also need to be significantly enhanced to at least 125-130 kN afterburning thrust.
Why are you quoting Afterburner figures. Wet thrust doesn't have nothing to do with Supercruise. All this 110 or 125-kN is confusing. Tell the Dry Thrust requirements. Is 58-kNx2 F414 not enough for supercruise? How much more dry thrust does it require? Is it 65 or 75-kN? Because every time I see these figures of Max Thrust it's confusing.
 

MirageBlue

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2020
Messages
655
Likes
3,665
Country flag
Why are you quoting Afterburner figures. Wet thrust doesn't have nothing to do with Supercruise. All this 110 or 125-kN is confusing. Tell the Dry Thrust requirements. Is 58-kNx2 F414 not enough for supercruise? How much more dry thrust does it require? Is it 65 or 75-kN? Because every time I see these figures of Max Thrust it's confusing.
Currently no. That's the reason for the higher thrust (110 kN afterburning) engines. Afterburner thrust goes up and correspondingly the dry thrust goes up. In what ratio it'll go up is pure guess work.
 

Spitfire9

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,171
Likes
2,817
Country flag
IIRC Eurojet EJ200 gives
60kN dry thrust
90kN wet thrust

For 5G (inc supercruise) would it not be better to increase dry thrust in the proposed 110kN wet thrust engine for AMCA at the cost of wet thrust? I assume that there is a play off in optimising for one or the other.

I hear (unconfirmed) that the dry thrust for the proposed Turkish engine for KAAN is hoped to be over 25,000lbs and wet thrust less than 50% more.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top