- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 18,276
- Likes
- 56,181
Something heavy like F-22 or J-20.overall it is not good for replacement as you don't replace flanker with strike eagle , it should be something new
Something heavy like F-22 or J-20.overall it is not good for replacement as you don't replace flanker with strike eagle , it should be something new
Can't amca design help in faster deveolpment of such a jet ?? , A chonky version based on it but tail fins acting as vertical stabilizer too , and bubble canopy , fatter nose .Something heavy like F-22 or J-20.
It would be an Excellent approach imoCan't amca design help in faster deveolpment of such a jet ?? , A chonky version based on it but tail fins acting as vertical stabilizer too , and bubble canopy , fatter nose .
As the European engine can be upgraded ,hope our indigenous turbofan can be developed into a heavy turbofan of 150 kn thrust ,but that will require change un metallurgy or the efficiency maybe hurt .
From initial configuration on paper AMCA will be more capable than MKI in A-A operation. It will be more capable A-G operation where it doesn't need to carry huge missile like Brahmos or Rustom (don't know why Rustom is so heavy). I am also skeptical about A-G guided munitions like DRDO Glide Bombs or Sudarshan laser-guided bomb in stealth configuration (i.e. in internal weapons bay)MTOW of MKI is ~39 tonnes.
That for AMCA is 25 tonnes. AMCA due to its medium payload won't able to do what a heavy fighter would. Though, it could take certain such operations in stop gap with limited goals. That's why it's being called multirole fighter.
No it does, if math exists, it does. This classification exists because it matters for air forces to define capabilities.
That's how fighters are classified for roles and capacities first place. AMCA is a stealth alternative of Rafael, TEDBF and F-18 Growler. Not Su 30 MkI at all.
MTOW means nothing ultimately payload is what makes the difference,MTOW of MKI is ~39 tonnes.
That for AMCA is 25 tonnes. AMCA due to its medium payload won't able to do what a heavy fighter would. Though, it could take certain such operations in stop gap with limited goals. That's why it's being called multirole fighter.
No it does, if math exists, it does. This classification exists because it matters for air forces to define capabilities.
That's how fighters are classified for roles and capacities first place. AMCA is a stealth alternative of Rafael, TEDBF and F-18 Growler. Not Su 30 MkI at all.
Fuel?MTOW means nothing ultimately payload is what makes the difference,
Rafale can carry a payload of 8-9 tons
While MKI can carry a payload of 8 tons
When you talk of the European engine, do you mean the brand new engine proposal under discussion with RR? When you say your indigenous turbofan can be developed into a heavy turbofan of 150 kn thrust ,but that will require change un metallurgy or the efficiency maybe hurt, do you mean further development of that new 110kN-120kN engine independently by India to reach 150kN?Can't amca design help in faster deveolpment of such a jet ?? , A chonky version based on it but tail fins acting as vertical stabilizer too , and bubble canopy , fatter nose .
As the European engine can be upgraded ,hope our indigenous turbofan can be developed into a heavy turbofan of 150 kn thrust ,but that will require change un metallurgy or the efficiency maybe hurt .
The jvWhen you talk of the European engine, do you mean the brand new engine proposal under discussion with RR? When you say your indigenous turbofan can be developed into a heavy turbofan of 150 kn thrust ,but that will require change un metallurgy or the efficiency maybe hurt, do you mean further development of that new 110kN-120kN engine independently by India to reach 150kN?
IIRC correctly the aim is to reach an agreement with RR by year end (not a detailed contract but enough detail for India to decide whether to go further with the idea).
Rafale engine is far more efficient than MKI so it has comparable range compared to the latterFuel?
That is platform dependent, a heavy weight aircraft with a great engine can easily outrange Rafale.Rafale engine is far more efficient than MKI so it has comparable range compared to the latter
If you have good engines (efficient) then you don't need heavy aircraft. Medium weight category aircraft can perform the duties of heavy weight aircraft.That is platform dependent, a heavy weight aircraft with a great engine can easily outrange Rafale.
Plus BVRAAMs and Stand Off missiles eliminate the need of heavy weights, was just explaining him that an efficient engine can actually help in higher distance travelling in a heavy fighter.If you have good engines (efficient) then you don't need heavy aircraft. Medium weight category aircraft can perform the duties of heavy weight aircraft.
One of the prime advantages of heavy weight aircraft is additional fuel carrying capacity.
At the same time weapons systems/package must be also miniaturized. With advent of new technologies miniaturization is taking place.
First and foremost to adapt AMCA for strike role Rudram and other guided munition needs to miniaturized.
We must not forget that electrical power output is also important with advent of DEW.Plus BVRAAMs and Stand Off missiles eliminate the need of heavy weights, was just explaining him that an efficient engine can actually help in higher distance travelling in a heavy fighter.
Rudram is a ARM , you can't miniaturize it for same range , it will have range penalty , rudram is supersonic , and range is almost 200 km + , better than many system available .If you have good engines (efficient) then you don't need heavy aircraft. Medium weight category aircraft can perform the duties of heavy weight aircraft.
One of the prime advantages of heavy weight aircraft is additional fuel carrying capacity but if the aircraft is fuel guzzler lkike MKI that advantage is nullified.
Other advantage is capability to carry huge sized payload (physical dimension).
At the same time weapons systems/package must be also miniaturized. With advent of new technologies miniaturization is taking place.
First and foremost to adapt AMCA for strike role Rudram and other guided munition needs to miniaturized.
72-75In what range a clean sheet 5th gen 110kn engine's dry thrust would be for amca. Would it be over 75kn or 80kn
I would not suggest so .Thanks for your reply. I have two more questions related to this
1} I have heard hal mentioning 110kn minimum requirement for amca engine. Given aero dynamic compromises one has to make for stealth shaping also limited internal fuel without external tanks, dry thrust is more important than wet thrust for a 5th gen stealth. My question is there a minimum requirement from ada/hal for the dry thrust.
2} Should we not aim to match 75%(approx) dry thrust as f119(which is 30 years old) even with RR partnership