India AMCA Program

[NEKO]

F-35 is bit of an oddball w.r.t the (dual) internal weapon bay layout....mostly because:

A) it is single engined (thus an engine is intrinsically split in centerline with volumes on either side of it.... rather than have a more "natural" large planform for two engines that leans to a single weapon bay),

B) overall constrained airframe of many compromises needed (if you look at design reqs.) compared to many other 5th gen.

C) went for full commonality (in IWB and much else) with all three variants (and STOVL variant especially imposing quite a design restriction "penalty" on this weapon bay)

So in comparison, AMCA is just another conventional single internal weapon bay as there is no unique desig

Well at least with dual weapon bay that means having extra structural component (that separated both weapon bay) in the belly area, and can improve aircraft structural integrity when pulling those high g manoeuvre, maybe.

I would imagine KF-21 goes for a single IWB as well in its 5th gen incarnation and onward

I hope so, more room for weapons.

Does India goes for twin engine design for the get go? Or also considering single engine design?

And the size, does India choose the size based on the engine that is available or choose the engine based on the size(design).

In the past India tried to partner up with Russia (SU-57) design which is big and now go with the current design which is not much different in size with KF-21 (medium size), why is that? Is there no strict requirement? (Size, range, weapons payload, fuel, MTOW)? Or it just go with the flows?

 

[Zapper]

Does India goes for twin engine design for the get go? Or also considering single engine design?

AMCA has always been envisioned as a twin engined fighter from the very inception. LCA Tejas and it's follow on MWF project (basically an enlarged Tejas) are single engine fighters while AMCA and TEDBF are twin engined

 

[Zapper]

And the size, does India choose the size based on the engine that is available or choose the engine based on the size(design).

The most accessible and feasible engine option we have are from GE. While we did have our set of specs and requirements, most of it was designed keeping GE-414 in mind. Our indigenous engine which we're building with the help of Safran will be fairly close to GE-414

In the past India tried to partner up with Russia (SU-57) design which is big and now go with the current design which is not much different in size with KF-21 (medium size), why is that? Is there no strict requirement? (Size, range, weapons payload, fuel, MTOW)? Or it just go with the flows?

AMCA was independent of Su-57. Our involvement in FGFA (Su-57) was to replace Su-30MKI fleet in the long run which is a large fighter jet class but a large airframe has it's drawbacks like compromising stealth and radar cross-section. There are certain advantages to such a large airframe like fitting in more weapons in the IWB, longer range/endurance etc but they're all irrelevant since 5th gen is all about stealth, sensor fusion and the ability to see your enemy first before they see you. The moment you switch on AESA or fire a missile by opening IWB...you're exposed and most definitely wouldn't even get a chance to fire all the missiles - essentially negating the need for a large airframe like Su-57.

The primary reason for FGFA project to not materialize is the unwillingness of Russians to share ToT or actively involve India in the development process

IAF is now focused on medium class fighters like the Rafale. Our current ongoing fighter jet projects MWF, TEDBF and AMCA are all medium class fighter jets

 

[Nilgiri]

Well at least with dual weapon bay that means having extra structural component (that separated both weapon bay) in the belly area, and can improve aircraft structural integrity when pulling those high g manoeuvre, maybe.

To some degree sure. But the cyclical load accumulation and envelope determination come mostly from the wing root area first (and wing itself) for that....rather than fuselage.

Having more integrity/strength somewhere by raw mass....also of course adds that raw mass penalty. It is trade off.

I hope so, more room for weapons.

Does India goes for twin engine design for the get go? Or also considering single engine design?

And the size, does India choose the size based on the engine that is available or choose the engine based on the size(design).

In the past India tried to partner up with Russia (SU-57) design which is big and now go with the current design which is not much different in size with KF-21 (medium size), why is that? Is there no strict requirement? (Size, range, weapons payload, fuel, MTOW)? Or it just go with the flows?

Peace lover answered these.

 

[fire starter]

GaN planks were developed ,need more info on power , 25 watt was achieved in x band , 60 watt or 50 watt is target

I think 25 watt is enough for airborne radar.

 

[fire starter]

SankhyaSutra unveils 'Made in India' software for aircraft design.​

SankhyaSutra unveils 'Made in India' software for aircraft design

Reliance Industries Ltd had acquired an 83 per cent stake in SankhyaSutra Labs in 2019, with an investment of Rs 216 crore

www.google.com

 

[fire starter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532353357049843712

 

[fire starter]





 

[fire starter]

Amca radome.

 

[fire starter]

Bharat Electronics Limited to work with ADE and ADA on fifth generation AMCA

AMCA is the indigenous fifth generation fighter and the specifications are in line with the Fifth Generation aircraft technology with features like stealth, internal weapons, super cruise, serpentine air intake etc. It will lead to a quantum jump in technological capabilities of India.

www.google.com

 

[fire starter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1547164027062976513

 

[Windchime]

F-35 is bit of an oddball w.r.t the (dual) internal weapon bay layout....mostly because:

A) it is single engined (thus an engine is intrinsically split in centerline with volumes on either side of it.... rather than have a more "natural" large planform for two engines that leans to a single weapon bay),

B) overall constrained airframe of many compromises needed (if you look at design reqs.) compared to many other 5th gen.

C) went for full commonality (in IWB and much else) with all three variants (and STOVL variant especially imposing quite a design restriction "penalty" on this weapon bay)

So in comparison, AMCA is just another conventional single internal weapon bay as there is no unique design challenge there like was given to F-35:

I would imagine KF-21 goes for a single IWB as well in its 5th gen incarnation and onwards.

Should not forget the requirements to load 2 Mk. 84/GBU-31s internally.

The most accessible and feasible engine option we have are from GE. While we did have our set of specs and requirements, most of it was designed keeping GE-414 in mind. Our indigenous engine which we're building with the help of Safran will be fairly close to GE-414

Add to that, during the MCA period and its following years, it would have only made sense that the MCA are to be powered by Kaveris. I don't think that much would have changed after the restructuring of the program to AMCA. Maybe K9 and K10 engines instead of Kaveri but having GTRE developed turbofans in mind, 20,000 lbs class engines seems like a go to interims.

 

[fire starter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1548994528102584320

 

[fire starter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1552258301575892992

 

[Nilgiri]

Wind tunnel AMCA model.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555852729498476544

 

[Zapper]

 

[fire starter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589138967949373441

 

[MADDOG]

So how many parts have been produced for the AMCA so far? I would love to follow your program closer.

 

[Nilgiri]

So how many parts have been produced for the AMCA so far? I would love to follow your program closer.

Produced in the implementation sense = 0.

These are provisional components so far in the thread and are subject to final integration (and any re-modification re-design then).

The critical design review completion is projected for next month (Dec 2022) after which we will see this thread populate much more regarding fabrication and testing with regards to the "final" AMCA.

 

[MADDOG]

Produced in the implementation sense = 0.

These are provisional components so far in the thread and are subject to final integration (and any re-modification re-design then).

The critical design review completion is projected for next month (Dec 2022) after which we will see this thread populate much more regarding fabrication and testing with regards to the "final" AMCA.

I see. I'm guessing the initial start of the program was around the year 2010. That would make the AMCA and the TF-X extremely close programs to one another. Both first flights expected in 2025 as well...