India Russia might sign contract for 154 FGFA this november

[Omega007]

Its designed with 414 engine in mind.

So??

 

[Mamsalaphala]

So??

An all metal Super hornet with 414 engine has an MTOW close to 30 tons with a range of 2,346 km.

An all composite AMCA with 414 with MTOW of 25 Ton will have a greater range.

 

[Omega007]

An all metal Super hornet with 414 engine has an MTOW close to 30 tons with a range of 2,346 km.

An all composite AMCA with 414 with MTOW of 25 Ton will have a greater range.

Hmm...I think you missed a crucial point while writing your comment.See,the thing is,that Super Hornet is a 4.5th generation fighter aircraft,which means apart from its 20 mm rounds for the Vulcan gatling,every other stores are carried externally!!Which frees up a lot of internal space for carrying fuel but same won't be the case with the AMCA since it will be needed to carry at least 2 tons of ordnance in its internal weapon bays,pound per pound and volum by volum,internal fuel capacity of the AMCA would be significantly lower than that of 4th generation fighters of its weight category!!

Now,the TiAl alloys that are used to fabricate body parts of fighters aren't really that much heavier than their composite counterparts,that's why LCA,even with all composite body frame doesn't weigh too less than fighters of its class!!Which means,even with a high composite content,AMCA won't be much bigger than it would have been if constructed of metalic parts!!Which again means,there would be less space available for carrying fuel.

Now the range you quoted for F18E was in clean condition,with ~6.8 ton of internal fuel!!And as per the current design,the AMCA will certainly carry lesser,much lesser than that figure!!So once doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that its range would be far less than that of a clean F18E with a fully loaded fuel tank!!

Now lets a look at the specs of the F 35,shall we??It has got an internal fuel capacity of a hopping ~8.4 tons and still it manages only around 2500 km or so on its internal fuel!!

And last but not least,I don't think the General Dynamics F414-400 in its present form,with a dry thrust of only 6.4 tons or so would be even nearly sufficient for the AMCA if the ADA wants to make it super cruise capable!!They would probably need the EPE version with some 20% more thrust,which will definitely increase its specific fuel consumption rate,which in terms will again further limit the effective range of the AMCA!!

 

[Mamsalaphala]

Hmm...I think you missed a crucial point while writing your comment.See,the thing is,that Super Hornet is a 4.5th generation fighter aircraft,which means apart from its 20 mm rounds for the Vulcan gatling,every other stores are carried externally!!Which frees up a lot of internal space for carrying fuel but same won't be the case with the AMCA since it will be needed to carry at least 2 tons of ordnance in its internal weapon bays,pound per pound and volum by volum,internal fuel capacity of the AMCA would be significantly lower than that of 4th generation fighters of its weight category!!

You are speculating since the dimensions of the AMCA is not available and neither is the size of the internal fuel capacity.

Now,the TiAl alloys that are used to fabricate body parts of fighters aren't really that much heavier than their composite counterparts,that's why LCA,even with all composite body frame doesn't weigh too less than fighters of its class!!Which means,even with a high composite content,AMCA won't be much bigger than it would have been if constructed of metalic parts!!Which again means,there would be less space available for carrying fuel.

Titanium has the Tensile strength of 1300 Mpa, specific strength of 288 Kn per kg and density of 4.51.

Carbon epoxy composite has Tensile strength of 1240, specific strength of 785 and density of 1.58

Carbon Fiber has Tensile strength of 4300 MPa, specific strength of 2457 kN.m per kg and density of 1.75.

Not only are composites stronger than TiAL but is also significantly lighter. What makes the LCA heavy is the rest of the components that go on the aircraft.

Now the range you quoted for F18E was in clean condition,with ~6.8 ton of internal fuel!!And as per the current design,the AMCA will certainly carry lesser,much lesser than that figure!!So once doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that its range would be far less than that of a clean F18E with a fully loaded fuel tank!!

I am not interested in baseless speculation, just to qualify a Bias.

And last but not least,I don't think the General Dynamics F414-400 in its present form,with a dry thrust of only 6.4 tons or so would be even nearly sufficient for the AMCA if the ADA wants to make it super cruise capable!!They would probably need the EPE version with some 20% more thrust,which will definitely increase its specific fuel consumption rate,which in terms will again further limit the effective range of the AMCA!!

Again those who design the AMCA know more about the requirements than armchair experts. It would be wiser to listen to them. Reducing drag is another way to ensure super cruise.

 

[Omega007]

You are speculating since the dimensions of the AMCA is not available and neither is the size of the internal fuel capacity.



Titanium has the Tensile strength of 1300 Mpa, specific strength of 288 Kn per kg and density of 4.51.

Carbon epoxy composite has Tensile strength of 1240, specific strength of 785 and density of 1.58

Carbon Fiber has Tensile strength of 4300 MPa, specific strength of 2457 kN.m per kg and density of 1.75.

Not only are composites stronger than TiAL but is also significantly lighter. What makes the LCA heavy is the rest of the components that go on the aircraft.

Yeah right,as if the same 'rest of the components' do not go inside other fighters!!Hypocrisy at its best!!

I am not interested in baseless speculation, just to qualify a Bias.

Nor am I interested in engaging a typical know all smart ***!!

Again those who design the AMCA know more about the requirements than armchair experts. It would be wiser to listen to them. Reducing drag is another way to ensure super cruise.

Very well,then quit this bloody forum and talk to 'those who design' you faggot!!

 

[Mamsalaphala]

Yeah right,as if the same 'rest of the components' do not go inside other fighters!!Hypocrisy at its best!!!

LOL..... Indian components like RWR, EW systems, radio, Oxygen generator etc are heavier or bulkier than foreign fighters. Clearly you have no clue about what you are talking.

Nor am I interested in engaging a typical know all smart ***!!!

Clearly. You are only interested in ignorant rants.

Very well,then quit this bloody forum and talk to 'those who design' you faggot!!

..... I will take your advice into consideration and let you know when I make up my mind.

 

[Omega007]

LOL..... Indian components like RWR, EW systems, radio, Oxygen generator etc are heavier or bulkier than foreign fighters. Clearly you have no clue about what you are talking.

Let me give you a taste of your own medicine : "I am not interested in baseless speculation, just to qualify a Bias."

Clearly. You are only interested in ignorant rants.

Everyone here knows which one between two of us actually matches your description!!

..... I will take your advice into consideration and let you know when I make up my mind.

Good,now here is another one,get your head checked by a psychiatrist,you desperately need that!!

 

[Mamsalaphala]

Let me give you a taste of your own medicine : "I am not interested in baseless speculation, just to qualify a Bias."

I can always claim my knowledge about avionics and aero frames comes from real life experience of working in the Aerospace segment specializing in a few things mentioned above. But you are free to believe what you want. This is not an discussion among equals.

Everyone here knows which one between two of us actually matches your description!!
Good,now here is another one,get your head checked by a psychiatrist,you desperately need that!!

LOL. Good bye kid.

 

[darksider]

Are you on drugs ??

After what happened to mother of all defense deals.you guys should have shame and dont try to troll on defense deals.first let planes come then you have right to brag.
126 then 36 still no agreement.
Kiya mazaq hey yaar or phir trolling b kartey hain dosro ko.
Lagta hey sharam naam ki koi cheez nahi in mey.

 

[darksider]

Sorry wrong thread

 

[PARIKRAMA]

@Omega007
I agree with your views completely.
We should not judge F18 E/F philosophy with GE414s reason being most Naval pilots were very unhappy with the F18s initially due to limited range over what they replaced (Again a separate thread and topic of discussion on why they did and what lobby worked for F18s). Even with F18 E/F all weapons loaded, it can very well carry less fuel while take off and do a Air refuel and fill it up and go do its missions... Again that was criticised very very heavily as it implied tankers to fly closer to hostile territories at times for refuelling and also cost of operations increases to ensure multiple round of refuelling for a single mission due to constraints. Of course, the cost aspect of a mission is never publically told so much but a sound planner should see that efficacy for sure.

A Amercian engine efficiency in terms of consumption in dry and wet thrust would be a bit on higher side..

I am not sure about specs of AMCA but with internal bay for weapons and maximum concealment of all avionics and other instruments, the fuel internal will be limited...Now issue with our country planners is, they feel the medium category should have a combat range of around 1000-1200 kms and i dont know from where they get such a logic. If they do employ such a logic then we should have an aerial tankers fleet several times bigger than present ones to support such ops. and the cost of individual mission as pointed in f18s case will be higher.. If we do develop conformal tanks then we do decrease stealth angle partially.. but a 25 tonne plane will have lots of limitation and definitely a tradeoff between range vs payload factor.. I would still prefer other engines then GE ones perhaps for AMCA... (personal opinion of course)

AMCA design will need much more pruning and more info to understand and ascertain true things..

 

[Omega007]

@Omega007
I agree with your views completely.
We should not judge F18 E/F philosophy with GE414s reason being most Naval pilots were very unhappy with the F18s initially due to limited range over what they replaced (Again a separate thread and topic of discussion on why they did and what lobby worked for F18s). Even with F18 E/F all weapons loaded, it can very well carry less fuel while take off and do a Air refuel and fill it up and go do its missions... Again that was criticised very very heavily as it implied tankers to fly closer to hostile territories at times for refuelling and also cost of operations increases to ensure multiple round of refuelling for a single mission due to constraints. Of course, the cost aspect of a mission is never publically told so much but a sound planner should see that efficacy for sure.

A Amercian engine efficiency in terms of consumption in dry and wet thrust would be a bit on higher side..

I am not sure about specs of AMCA but with internal bay for weapons and maximum concealment of all avionics and other instruments, the fuel internal will be limited...Now issue with our country planners is, they feel the medium category should have a combat range of around 1000-1200 kms and i dont know from where they get such a logic. If they do employ such a logic then we should have an aerial tankers fleet several times bigger than present ones to support such ops. and the cost of individual mission as pointed in f18s case will be higher.. If we do develop conformal tanks then we do decrease stealth angle partially.. but a 25 tonne plane will have lots of limitation and definitely a tradeoff between range vs payload factor.. I would still prefer other engines then GE ones perhaps for AMCA... (personal opinion of course)

AMCA design will need much more pruning and more info to understand and ascertain true things..

This Heavy - Med - Light logic in itself is flawed (assuming there is any logic at all)!!Which other Air Force does that??In every other Air Force across the world,the established practice is to employ a heavy - light mix.It's pure common sense that a 25 ton AMCA would never suffice for its intended roles but as Prasun Da would say,"common sense is not so common a virtue in this part of the world"!!

 

[Perpendicular]

This Heavy - Med - Light logic in itself is flawed (assuming there is any logic at all)!!Which other Air Force does that??In every other Air Force across the world,the established practice is to employ a heavy - light mix.It's pure common sense that a 25 ton AMCA would never suffice for its intended roles but as Prasun Da would say,"common sense is not so common a virtue in this part of the world"!!

Agree I do.
Its a big flaw already in the approach.
I believe RFI should be floated among private sector for the next homemade Advanced fighter program as well (Not light, medium or heavy). Bring out the current and foreseeable required number. Obviously none of the current non PSU (I doubt our PSU's as well but that's debatable) companies have an ability, infrastructure to bring out such an advanced machinery but surely with a foreign collaboration it can happen.