dunno why we are going with GE-414 and price negotiating engine deal now since originally GE was lowest bidder for tejas mk2 contest but IAF wanted ej-200 since its more modern plus lighter and thrust can be increased to another 20%! it was so damn futuristic almost 4.5 generation jet engine and whole tejas mk2 fiasco could be avoided by replacing the existing ge404 in tejas mk1
Air Force says DRDO stalling Tejas fighter engine
www.ajaishukla.com
Exactly. When Engine was selected, there were news that EJ200 was selected. Everyone was happy but subsequently it was declared that GE was selected. Tejas would have performed batter with EJ200. It has a very good dry thrust.
Ej 200 was always the superior option we could have developed a 110kN easily too with it. Buy american was the biggest mistake. Why was the IAF insistent on american engines when even mig 29 engine would have been a better option.
Dunno about this tbh, Just like EJ 200, F414 can probably be developed into 110 kN engine. F 414 and EJ 200 are pretty equal on performance basis but, probably F 414 outperforms it on TBO.
As far as RD 33 is concerned, it's no way near to either engines by any metric
Probably contract issues with Rolls Royce but in terms of performance both are pretty equal tbh so, either engines are fine for the mk 2. Personally I hope we start the Kaveri 2.0 for the Tejas mk 2 and other jets in the future because we can leverage a lot from the JV for the AMCA engine.
That isn't how jet engines are compared. For comparing two turbofan engine of the same class you need to compare things like thrust to weight ratio, overall pressure ratio, bypass Ratio, TBO and many more aspects.Having more dry thrust is pretty much insignificant here.
Having higher dry thrust is very much important as the MTOW is a function of Dry thrust of Engine. T/W ratio is ok but Pressure ratio, bypass ratio etc . together determines thrust. So if Thrust is higher for same weight engines, the one which produces higher thrust is a batter engine. You can increase other ratios of your metallurgy so allow. Design an engine for Increased bypass ration or pressure is not difficult but make components to sustain is difficult.
You can increase the ratios with metallurgy and that's what GE excels at and is better than rolls Royce thus, the F 414 has a higher pressure ratio than the EJ 200 and a higher reliability.
Metallurgy is one of the hardest part of the jet engine technology and in fact that's exactly the part where India lags and requires investment.
EJ 200 isn't a superior or even inferior for that matter than the F 414. A higher dry thrust doesn't make the EJ 200 an overall better engine, there are several other factors where F 414 is better as well.
In the end both are equally good engines.
A collage of AMCA's CAD 2D front view projections from various artists, in different resolutions, some resized.
If anybody has more 2D front views, diagram, sketch, etc, please share.
If anybody has more 2D front views, diagram, sketch, etc, please share.
Funny thing I've read somewhere online that the ge-404 on the tejas is considered to be more advanced than the m-88's on the Rafales and far more reliable according to one of the IAF maintenance engineers. Unreliable report as it's an anecdote.
Exclusive : AMCA Production with HAL-Led Joint Venture - alphadefense.in
India is set to manufacture the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) through a HAL-led joint venture with private firms.
alphadefense.in
Last edited:
IAF's version of the F404 comes with a new core and it's a newer development compared to the M88. So there might be some truth to that in certain contexts, but may not be absolute. The F414 is definitely more advanced. But M88 is far more modular than either engine, so it's far easier to maintain.
Exclusive : AMCA Production with HAL-Led Joint Venture - alphadefense.in
India is set to manufacture the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) through a HAL-led joint venture with private firms.alphadefense.in
Unfortunately, only MRFA will give the private sector a proper integrator. The others don't want to take such a risk.
I hope Ghatak goes private, even better if the IAF decides to develop its own capabilities as an integrator in this segment. They had originally planned to do their own integration for AMCA, but was junked.
So far we have seen multiple CADs & static models with slight differences.
Neither ADA nor the 3D artists release basic schematic diagrams, cross sections, configurations, etc. The ones available so far are low resolution & inadequate.
It is difficult to confirm how the inducted jet will look like & its capabilities.
So taking the most convincing CAD front view & superimposing the IWB dimension of 2.2m width & 0.75m depth, along with BVR-AAMs from TEDBF CAD, it seems 6x Astr-2 short-fin version with 178mm body diameter would fit in IWB easily with or w/o staggering.
SWB is also possible.
With 1.5 ton IWB capacity, 6x BVR-AAMs + 2 CCMs = 6x154 + 2x88 = 1,100 Kg, 1.1/(12+6.5+1.1)=5.6% of STOW.
Wet T/STOW ratio = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+6.5+1.1) = 1.02
With 50% fuel used & firing 4 BVR-AAMs, with 2 CCMs & 2 BVR-AAMs left, wet TWR = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / {12+3.25+(4x154 + 2x88)/1000} = 1.24
very harsh, you have the dual antenna launcher, use that. No need for the iwb in the meantime.
very harsh, you have the dual antenna launcher, use that. No need for the iwb in the meantime.
View attachment 41636
View attachment 41637
What are you talking about?
I'm talking about airframe cross section diagram w.r.t. enhancing a 5gen jet's capacity, not making reverse gear to 4gen.
26 firms responded , 2 were cast aside due to set condition (no psu/govt firms), and eventually 8 firms are cleared after evaluation from the rest. Now we are proceeding.
