Indian Military fan art, conceptual art & CGI

[patriots]

Can you make a render
Hal lch carrying helina with quad rack
Rustom 2 carrying helina
@Kuntal

 

[Kuntal]

Can you make a render
Hal lch carrying helina with quad rack
Rustom 2 carrying helina
@Kuntal

Currently I'm more into aircrafts, helis will take time. Doable.

Sent from my SM-M307F using Tapatalk

 

[Kuntal]

Test pilot of HAL. .. . . . .

 

[Kuntal]

Ravi Kumar Gupta is a retired scientist of DRDO.
{NOTE: He is the one who deleted the tweet saying Astra mk1 is dual pulse}

 

[Shaitan]

View attachment 43319 Test pilot of HAL. .. . . . .

Keep at it and I am sure you'll get more recognition. You're bringing to life several concepts, future programs like no one has done before in India.

 

[Shaitan]

=====================================

 

[Kuntal]

Most of the a2g and a2a weapons of Tejas

 

[Kuntal]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Kuntal]

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .

 

[Kuntal]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Aashk]

Early LVH concept....................!

 

[Aashk]

...................................................

 

[Bleh]

This is your older render, right?

That's something you'll need to rectify in the newer one. At true dimensions MWF cannot carry multiple dual-racks side by side, but only & only in alternate pylons.
See here;

These are the 2 possible ways this "BVR Beast" can carry 8 BVRs... 4 on each side. I bet it's the left one with EFT, or it would carry 10 BVRs (1 replacing that LDP) not 8.

Early LVH concept....................!

Isn't this the old, cruder LCH concept... being hatched from Dhruv?
What stands for LVH?

 

[porky_kicker]

This is your older render, right?

That's something you'll need to rectify in the newer one. At true dimensions MWF cannot carry multiple dual-racks side by side, but only & only in alternate pylons.

I disagree with the above

Two consecutive weapon station can carry dual pylons unless weight considerations and spacing does not allow it and there is no official data released which points towards the same.

Infact the outermost under wing pylon which you have shown with dual rack might not have the weight clearance to support the same

 

[Kuntal]

In a video at Defexpo 2020 some ADA member was saying that MWF going to be the only fighter of IAF which will be capable of carrying 8 BVRAAM.

The configuration suggested by porky kicker as "beast mode" carrying 12 BVRAAM along with 2 ccm at wing tip seems a little exaggeration. It requires 2 dual rack pylon "side by side" on each wing ( carrying a total of 4 x2 = 8 bvraams ).

2 consecutive dual rack pylon is NOT possible IMO. It's because of the fin / control surface of the missiles. There will be very little space left between 2 consecutive missiles, if done so.

What I think is practically possible, and has been shown to us already is carrying 4 bvraam on each wing with single dual rack pylon, leaving the center pylon and 2 other belly side pylon for bombs/ pgms/ pods.

If it has to carry more than 4 BVRs on each wing, that can be done by replacing the EFT ( 1st pylon ) with a SINGLE rack pylon, and NOT by dual rack pylon.

Sent from my SM-M307F using Tapatalk

 

[Bleh]

...spacing does not allow it and there is no official data released which points towards the same.

In a video at Defexpo 2020 some ADA member was saying that MWF going to be the only fighter of IAF which will be capable of carrying 8 BVRAAM.

The configuration suggested by porky kicker as "beast mode" carrying 12 BVRAAM along with 2 ccm at wing tip seems a little exaggeration. It requires 2 dual rack pylon "side by side" on each wing ( carrying a total of 4 x2 = 8 bvraams ).

2 consecutive dual rack pylon is NOT possible IMO. It's because of the fin / control surface of the missiles. There will be very little space left between 2 consecutive missiles, if done so.

What I think is practically possible, and has been shown to us already is carrying 4 bvraam on each wing with single dual rack pylon, leaving the center pylon and 2 other belly side pylon for bombs/ pgms/ pods.

If it has to carry more than 4 BVRs on each wing, that can be done by replacing the EFT ( 1st pylon ) with a SINGLE rack pylon, and NOT by dual rack pylon.

Sent from my SM-M307F using Tapatalk

In case of both Tejas Mark1 & MWF, it's spacing. Unlike the F-15, its wing is congested & hardpoints are closer.

These are official... I checked the proportions on the Defexpo & CAD models too. Maybe it will be able to, but better to play safe instead of overestimating.

Infact the outermost under wing pylon which you have shown with dual rack might not have the weight clearance to support the same

Possible. But Tejas Mark1A can, so MWF should too.

 

[Bleh]

Possible pure dogfight configs of MWF, from most to least probability.

3 tanks, 6-8 BVRs, 2-4 CCMs : Most likely one to be used.

2 tanks, 6-8 BVRs, 4-6 CCMs : Unlikely but not impossible.

1 tank, 10 BVRs, 4 CCMs : Negligible chance of existing outside @Kuntal's Twitter handle fanservice posts.

 

[porky_kicker]

Possible. But Tejas Mark1A can, so MWF should too.View attachment 43461

Those are CCMs on mk1a dual pylon.

They weight far less than bvraams

And I meant dual pylons with bvraams in the case of mwf

Only time will tell us if the outermost pylon with dual bvraams can be carried or not

 

[porky_kicker]

When I meant "beast mode" it was a configuration for kind of fanboy dream . It should have been obvious.

Anyways

Each and every configuration of weapons loadout needs extensive aerodynamics studies and certification before being put into use including feasibility studies given the

1. Weapon station weight rating
2. Aerodynamic interaction of missiles with aircraft during flight, launch and emergency release .
3. Aerodynamic interaction of missiles on adjacent missiles both on same pylon or on adjacent pylons during flight , launch and emergency release.
4. Drag and flight performance penalties of any given loadout to ensure that aircraft kinematic capabilities are not reduced beyond a threshold.
5. Plume management of missiles so that adjacent missiles don't get damaged.
6. Thrust ver induced drag studies on various loadout configurations.

Etc

Before Dogfight every drop tank is jettisoned .

For air defence mission only minimum no of drop tank is carried , enough to reach designated zone.

If a aircraft comes under attack from SAM or from a AAM first thing it does is eject all drop tanks and PGMs . Depending on performance requirements during evasive maneuvers , BVRAAMs might also be ejected depending on the pilots assessment of his situation.

Also there is a cost factor which comes into play .

I doubt that we will ever see more than 4 BVRAAMs on a single aircraft.

The aircraft might get certified with more than 4 BVRAAMs but operationally on a day to day basis we will see fewer loadouts of active BVRAAMs. Unless we are in a war situation.

Any BVRAAMs activated for flight gets it operational life reduced and needs expensive maintenance to get recertified to make it flight worthy again.

It's not as simple as removing it and putting it into storage and then putting it on an aircraft again.

So all the configurations we all are spelling out here is just a let's say fanboy moment as of now . To be 100% sure we have to wait for various official configurations after the first aircraft rolls out.

 

[Bleh]

Those are CCMs on mk1a dual pylon.

They weight far less than bvraams

Yeah, that's right too.

When I meant "beast mode" it was a configuration for kind of fanboy dream . It should have been obvious.

Anyways

Each and every configuration of weapons loadout needs extensive aerodynamics studies and certification before being put into use including feasibility studies given the

1. Weapon station weight rating
2. Aerodynamic interaction of missiles with aircraft during flight, launch and emergency release .
3. Aerodynamic interaction of missiles on adjacent missiles both on same pylon or on adjacent pylons during flight , launch and emergency release.
4. Drag and flight performance penalties of any given loadout to ensure that aircraft kinematic capabilities are not reduced beyond a threshold.
5. Plume management of missiles so that adjacent missiles don't get damaged.
6. Thrust ver induced drag studies on various loadout configurations.

Etc

Before Dogfight every drop tank is jettisoned .

For air defence mission only minimum no of drop tank is carried , enough to reach designated zone.

If a aircraft comes under attack from SAM or from a AAM first thing it does is eject all drop tanks and PGMs . Depending on performance requirements during evasive maneuvers , BVRAAMs might also be ejected depending on the pilots assessment of his situation.

Also there is a cost factor which comes into play .

I doubt that we will ever see more than 4 BVRAAMs on a single aircraft.

The aircraft might get certified with more than 4 BVRAAMs but operationally on a day to day basis we will see fewer loadouts of active BVRAAMs. Unless we are in a war situation.

Any BVRAAMs activated for flight gets it operational life reduced and needs expensive maintenance to get recertified to make it flight worthy again.

It's not as simple as removing it and putting it into storage and then putting it on an aircraft again.

So all the configurations we all are spelling out here is just a let's say fanboy moment as of now . To be 100% sure we have to wait for various official configurations after the first aircraft rolls out.

I read about the "beast-mode with 8 BVRs" on some IRDW interview. Pretty sure they were talking about basically that (quite easy) 3EFT-8BVR-2CCM one.

And this 3EFT-6BVR-4CCM has exact same wing (the side with air-superiority loadout) as Defexpo models.

BUT....... say the above parameters are met & your CCM-only-on-outer-pylons point considered, then how many CCM/BVRs would a MWF preferably carry to an actual 27th-like high stakes interception CAP?

6CCM-8BVR-1EFT may be maximum acheivable using dual-racks, considering above pylon capacity & spacing constraints.

What's your opinion on this @Kuntal? You'll be the one to make.