Why're you anti randomradio? Why can't you start your own channel instead for "superior " Content ? Besides you can play it here & not risk AI recommendations.Can't take risk clicking this. It will ruin my youtube recommendation.
by 2022 it will become 7th generation - that is why there is going to be a delay in AMCA devliveries. we keep researching until the cows come home- and updating the mig-21s until then.
I went thru AMCA specs on wiki as nothing much is available on ADA website. The empty weight is supposed to be 11 tons, fuel 6 tons and MTOW of 30 tons. They are looking for 2x110/125KN engines for this configuration. Are we going to have a bombload of 13 tons for AMCA with such huge TWR? This sounds ridiculous.
The wing area is 39.9sqm with 42* SB and 25* Sweepforward. Its going to have a wingloading of over 750Kgs/sqm with such an MTOW and this wingloading will make it a dud even with such TWR if MTOW is going to be 30 tons.
The wing area is 39.9sqm with 42* SB and 25* Sweepforward. Its going to have a wingloading of over 750Kgs/sqm with such an MTOW and this wingloading will make it a dud even with such TWR if MTOW is going to be 30 tons.
Wiki specs are all wrong.
The targeted specs are 12T empty, 6.5T fuel, 1.5T IWB payload on 4 hardpoints, 5T external payload on 6+2 hardpoints. MTOW is 25T. 110KN engine, with possibly 5% growth potential.
You should give us a regular memo when you change opinions like these.
You should give us a regular memo when you change opinions like these.
My opinion hasn't changed. All I did was correct Vstol's post. The AMCA should have a larger external payload, in order to allow the carriage of more fuel and bigger weapons. Including stealthy weapons pods. All these require a higher MTOW than the actual design. The greater priority is the internal payload should be increased. But the internal payload is already too less, so at least the external payload should compensate for it. Right now, AMCA is na ghar ka na ghat ka.
AMCA right now is like the original F-15C.
MTOW is not dependent on internal or external configurations. I was saying for years that MTOW will be around 25ton and it will have better TWR than Rafale and EF.
You said,
Now you are correcting others
MTOW is not dependent on internal or external configurations. I was saying for years that MTOW will be around 25ton and it will have better TWR than Rafale and EF.
You said,
Now you are correcting others
I don't see the difference.
You said MTOW is 25T, I said a 25T MTOW is crappy. What's the problem?
AMCA payload's only 6.5T, same as MWF. That's good?
It's clear you haven't understood the point I'm making.
Read this post: ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
If the MTOW is going to be 25T, 2x110KN engines are perfect fit and for the first time in history they are calculating the trust requirement correctly. For Indian conditions, we must reduce the original thrust by 10% and than use that reduced thrust for TWR calculations. So 220KN will become about 198KN or about 20.2tons of thrust and if we consider the dry thrust to be about 60Kn each, we get about 108Kn as dry thrust. Multiplying this by 2.5 we get 108x2.5=27.5tons. This gives a further 10% reserve thrust for future upgrades and deterioration of engine thrust over its lifetime. I support and agree for this thrust rating. This is how I calculated thrust for my own design.
The dry thrust number you have used is for the basic F414. The dry thrust aim is much, much higher than 60KN for the definitive engine, more than 70KN. And even with 60KN, the AMCA cannot supercruise.
Although they have put sufficient margin for growth with the F414 alone, I think it's mainly to cater to AMCA becoming overweight. The wet thrust will remain insufficient.
The Enhanced Engine with more than 65/110KN is also available, which could allow AMCA to supercruise for a short duration.
Overall, there's plenty of growth for AMCA, completely unlike LCA. The loaded weight is just 18.5-19T anyway.
AMCA has one of the lowest internal payload at just 1.5tons. MSA will have 2.75ton as internal loadout due to its three internal bays. The main bay can carry 2x2000lbs bombs and side bays can take 4xmeteor. The gun ammo of 150x30mm is not included.
AMCA has been designed to fail, so that IAF can ask for FGFA Mk2 after 2025.
The internal load is just 1.5T and external load is 5T. When it carries 2 Brahmos-M, all it can carry on the wings is 2 800L tanks, completely insufficient, and just 4 missiles inside the IWB.
If this much is obvious to you guys, do you think it'd have escaped the attention of folks at ADA? In which case, don't you think they haven't released the final specs or there's something fishy with whatever info they have released to the public .
It may not necessarily be ADA's fault. I suspect the MoD/IAF have asked for such specs in order to allow room for the import of a heavier aircraft. Whether it's Su-57 or something else.
Based on AMCA's internal bay specs, it can't carry bigger and heavier weapons, whereas the FGFA has been designed to carry 2 extra missiles internally, along with long range cruise missiles. In simpler words, AMCA doesn't even meet MMRCA payload specs while FGFA kills MMRCA payload specs thereby clearly drawing the line between the two aircraft. From the IAF's perspective, DRDO won't be able to veto imports since there's a clear class difference between the two.
Bigger IWBs on AMCA will remove the need for FGFA. Of course, it's a different story whether ADA can actually deliver such an aircraft. Especially now, with the aircraft already having been designed.
Vstol's MSA is a different beast, completely murders AMCA, and comes with more flexible payload options than FGFA. But its main drawback is safety. It's a single engine design and both IAF and IN may not be comfortable operating it over difficult terrain like mountains, deserts and oceans. Although this argument has slowly been getting less and less important as engine technology has improved, including improved safety from bird hits.