Sir, the purpose is to drive the people here towards DFI, whom will be tasked to come with a name for AMCA. They can find some of those here. Take it for fun. In some forums, I have seen regular, senior members as well as moderators name AMCA and extending thread to 3-4 pages in naming only!!
Just like you folks have enjoyed the liberty of offering nomenclature, I also enjoy the liberty to point out what I feel is premature. We are all entitled to an opinion. Given that you guys are pointing out that I am a MOD, it would have taken me one second to delete those posts, but I did not. So, chill guys, and keep posting nomenclature. It doesn't violate forum rules.
To my mind, Nirbhaya's subsonic speed is not it's main drawback. US's Tomahawk (similar to Nirbhaya) entered into service in 1983. Still there is no effective counter against it. Cruise missiles are not easy to strike down in-flight. However, it sounds a little silly to launch a long range subsonic missile from a supersonic fighter Aircraft. Nirbhaya will serve best from ships.
But all cruise missiles follow a terrain-hugging horizontal flight-path for better part. That is why Theatre-missile defence system can shoot down ballistic missiles but not CMs. As for supersonic Brahmos emitting more heat, when even a bird reflects RF signal, what is the significance of heat-emitting supersonic planes/ missiles?
AMCA may indeed have lower maneuverability than lighter F-16 with fewer payloads, oil-tanks. Heavier SU-30 MK I suffers from same deficit. Higher engine thrust doesn't contribute to greater maneuverability.
How can you say that? F-16 is more manuevrable or T-50? I have not said more thrust implies more manuever. Do you really think makers of AMCA are unknown to foriegn fighter designs? Tejas's wing loading is among lowest in the world. If the makers want AMCA to be super manuevrable, they will make it.
In a lighter vein, our makers are very much aware of foreign plane designs..otherwise how they will rip off?Rushav is more suited to Tank, Ulka for missile, Ugrabij for warhead, Vinashak already taken? Udayan is too soft for a defence hardware..that leaves Indrayudh..ahem.
I can understand your point here, and for Pakistam we can launch the missile from anywhere say 100 kms from border and yet it can hit a target anywhere in Pakistan, but China is a different situation.
PKAFA has 3D thrust victor nozzle. How can it be less maneuverable than any other plane in world?
If the nose cone size of AMCA is bigger than automatically bigger radar size shall result into more powerful radar.
Thrust vectoring can aid in changing pitch and yaw. So can ailerons, rudders, flaps etc. But Dog-fight maneuver involves much more..Airframe, FCS, drag, payload and so on.
This will be over-kill. If brahmos (290 km) are launched from Punjab & Rajasthan border, they can easily cover Lahore, Islamabad & Rawalpindi. Nirbhaya will come into play if fired from Arabian sea..in that case it can hit Gwadar to Lahore !
What TVC allow it that it increase the turn rate of the plane and momentary allow you to point you nose at extreme angle of attack .Unlike Su 30 MKI ,newer version the TVC are controlled by flight system not pilot
Yeah, lengthier radome implies more powerful radar. AMCA's radome is very lenghty, so guessing its AESA radar will be very capable one.
MK I has TVC?...................................
