Not bad. So we can look forward to first flight of the TDs by 2023. Which can put the prototype testing between 2025 and 2026.
Not bad. So we can look forward to first flight of the TDs by 2023. Which can put the prototype testing between 2025 and 2026.
F-35 has roughly the same span as AMCA. About 2m shorter. It appears to have a much wider and fatter fueselage. It has only one engine vs two. But once again a bit shorter. It has a smaller radome though, but part of it's length comes large tailplanes. The biggest thing going for F-35 is it's 1.5 ton higher empty weight. Although given Indian development history, AMCA will likely end up weighing the same.
So basically ........................... nothing. This simple eyeballing does not provide conclusive evidence with regards to the respective fueselage volumes and consequently AMCA's internal volume and fuel capacity. Somebody with better analysis capacity will have to draw lines and stuff till the time AMCAs specs are published. Given AMCA timelines, it is probably moot.
F-35 has roughly the same span as AMCA. About 2m shorter. It appears to have a much wider and fatter fueselage. It has only one engine vs two. But once again a bit shorter. It has a smaller radome though, but part of it's length comes large tailplanes. The biggest thing going for F-35 is it's 1.5 ton higher empty weight. Although given Indian development history, AMCA will likely end up weighing the same.
So basically ........................... nothing. This simple eyeballing does not provide conclusive evidence with regards to the respective fueselage volumes and consequently AMCA's internal volume and fuel capacity. Somebody with better analysis capacity will have to draw lines and stuff till the time AMCAs specs are published. Given AMCA timelines, it is probably moot.
The AMCA is sleeker because it's been designed for air superiority and supercruise. The AMCA is more like a stealth Rafale with more range.
And I don't think it has side bays either. Only 2 main bays, or a single wide main bay.
I am looking at this jet as a little brother to the FGFA in fact.
@vstol Jockey
Don't think so. 50000ft altitude and Mach 1.8. Nothing to indicate Air-Superiority as a design goal. Besides super cruise is a matter of engine when it comes to supersonic aircraft. F-35 has a higher bypass ratio engine which is why it doesn't super cruise.The AMCA is sleeker because it's been designed for air superiority and supercruise. The AMCA is more like a stealth Rafale with more range.
And I don't think it has side bays either. Only 2 main bays, or a single wide main bay.
I am looking at this jet as a little brother to the FGFA in fact.
@vstol Jockey
This is more like the complete lack of foresight from Indian designers just as in the case of 'world's smallest fighter' LCA.
You seem to be a genius. The weight of the plane is stated to be 25tons. So, even with twin Kaveri engine of 65/100kN thrust, it can still have supercruise. It will have more TWR than Rafale, F15, F35 and even MiG29. So, supercruise is something guaranteed.
Second, stealth fighters primary goal is air-to-air combat. Air to ground is only used in CAS aircrafts. All fighter jets designed today are primarily oriented to A2A as the A2G has become very simple with the arrival of PGM and laser guided bombs.
May be you lack common sense rather than ADA lacking foresight. F35 is a fat plane with poor maneuverability and that is not an ideal design. The reason twin engine is needed is to reduce the diameter of a single engine and instead make the plane more flat. The weight of AMCA will be lesser than F35 as it is a smaller plane and will have fuel of 6tonnes and 1.5tonnes payload internally which can be converted into fuel storage to increase the fuel storage. F35 has 8.5tonnes of fuel in addition to 2 tonnes of ammunition internally. AMCA is meant to be smaller than F35 and hence the weight will also be smaller, fuel will be smaller and payload will be smaller.
And how likely are those to change? Tejas TD doesn't look much different to SP.
Even FGFA, IAF wanted lower speed and more stealth. We have no need for speed.
There are standard published figures and actual figures. Generally, both are different.
Some weapons configurations.
Then there's a different layout as well, where the bay looks shorter.
Then we have one with side bays.
Then there's a different layout as well, where the bay looks shorter.
Then we have one with side bays.
More stealth sure, but why would they ask for less speed?
That can be said for everyone and everything.
Where are you getting these from?Some weapons configurations.
Then there's a different layout as well, where the bay looks shorter.
Then we have one with side bays.
The newer configuration is better. SRAAM have no place in a stealth A2A mission.
2000lb bomb? it was in the early stage of the developpment that request.
Now internally it's only 1000lb bombs (at least on a version. Don't remember which one).
This external configuration in Air superiority weapon load(internal +external weapon bay) config can destroy one full squadron of PAF.Some weapons configurations.
I would love to see the amount of work ADA puts into the composites of the wing and center fuselage of AMCA. We need something better than carbon fiber and titanium alloy to carry this much load on a fighter jet of medium weight category.
Because any speed more than mach 2 is pointless for our geography and threats. The Russians need more speed because they had to chase down bombers.
Now, if you want more speed, it's gotta be hypersonic or it's of no use.
Everything's from ADA.
All missile types are important. Now BVR missiles can shoot down targets at over 100Km in a direct flight path or over 200Km in a ballistic flight path. And WVR missiles have already reached ranges of over 50Km in direct flight path.