AMCA width 36'6" / length 57'9" / empty weight 12 tons / Internal fuel 6.5 tons.
F-18E/F width 44'8" / length 60'1" / empty weight 14.5 tons / Internal fuel 6.7 tons.
After seeing skinny 4gen F-18 SH with same 2x F414 engines & enjoying versatility of high loadout including EW pods, i decided to push AMCA's design potential as per its dimensions.
5gen design brings AAMs very close inside IWB in staggered order. The fins of AAMs were clipped.
6gen focuses on more capacity of everything & AMCA is being pitched as 5.5gen, so capacity should be increased IMO.
Bcoz AAMs already don't have 100% PK (Probability of Kill) & DEW-CIWS or DECM (Directed Energy Counter Measure), so the next step is to pack more AAMs in same space.
NOTE- After shooting BVR-AAMs the tactic is not to merge for dogfight like in movies, videogames, but make U-turn & continue to stayout of enemy's AAM's NEZ till all BVR-AAMs are depleted.
The PL-15 might be 1st medium range AAM with folding fin.
But with AMCA's 0.75m IWB depth, 135 degrees of folding is not required, just 45 degrees up/down would suffice. The launcher would punch out the AAMs straight, so the folded fins would be aerodynamically in line with separation trajectory, would take less time to unfold & start flying the AAM.
Astr AAM dia. is 178mm.
In the 2,200mm wide IWB, 2x4 or even 2x5 AAMs might fit tightly.
If the folding can be done within 180mm width then 5x180=900mm would be needed for 5 AAMs, leaving 200/6= 33mm gap b/w the AAMs & with IWB side walls.
A scaled notional diagram of 3/4/5 AAMs looks like following:
With 10x BVR-AAMs + 4 CCMs = 10x154 + 4x88 = 1,892 Kg, 1.892/(12+6.5+1.892)=9.3% of STOW (earlier 1.1 tons was 5.6%).
Wet T/STOW ratio = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / (12+6.5+1.892) = 0.98 (earlier 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+1.892) = 1.16 (earlier 1.24)
Now comparing this new potential with F-18 looks like following:
It looks like may be AMCA airframe volume can be expanded some more.
How many Mk-3s can this IWB accommodate using these dimensions for the missile:Astr AAM dia. is 178mm.
In the 2,200mm wide IWB, 2x4 or even 2x5 AAMs might fit tightly.
If the folding can be done within 180mm width then 5x180=900mm would be needed for 5 AAMs, leaving 200/6= 33mm gap b/w the AAMs & with IWB side walls.
A scaled notional diagram of 3/4/5 AAMs looks like following:
Current IWB is 4.2 m long, the missile is shown as ~4.4m. Assume the length is not an issue.
Now comparing this new potential with F-18 looks like following:
It looks like may be AMCA airframe volume can be expanded some more.
I am willing to believe that the airframe will grow somewhat when the DRDO-foreign OEM 110 kN engine become available. Basically AMCA Mk-1 will be smaller/lighter than the Mk-2. This is especially true if they are serious about the AMCA being a 5.5 gen.
So, I am quite sure that the IWB will become bigger/deeper. I am not sure there will be side bays though, let alone side bays that can hold 2 CCMs. That would require extensive wind tunnel work for bay door opening & closing, missile ejection, safe separation etc. What seems more likely is that the bay doors themselves can mount a couple of missiles/bombs.
Anyhow, can you calculate the dry & wet TWR for the AMCA Mk-2? Assume the same loadout that you have proposed except with Astra Mk-3, assume each Mk-3 is 200 kgs. Each engine has 70 kN dry & 110 kN wet.
From this slide the AMCA Mk-2 will super cruise at M1.3 at 12 km with just 36 kN thrust from each engine. The MTOW by my rough calculations come out to be around 28-32 tons.
The real length is below 4.2 m. SFDR was 3.84 m.
There is no AMCA Mk1 and Mk2. It's all just AMCA. The airframe will remain the same. AMCA's weapons bays have seen some modifications for increased payload, but I don't think that will affect AAMs.
AMCA doesn't have much room to grow with just 110 kN engines. At 12T empty, it has roughly the same TWR as the F-22. There may be a program for a real AMCA Mk2 or an AMCA NG, with more features at a later date instead. This may be powered by a 120 or 130 kN engine, providing that extra 2-3 tons of growth. It's not expected to go beyond its medium weight design due to its smaller fuselage, plus it's meant to be our mass component for stealth.
There is no clearance for managing heat or vibrations in such a design.
AMCA's designed for 4 large AAMs or 5 MICA class AAMs (unless there's a separator). The real goal is to carry 2 AAMs alongside 2 DEAD weapons.
AAM mass will be provided by drones and SAMs.
AAM mass will be provided by drones and SAMs.
A NON TECHNICAL SUGGESTION FROM ME for the NAME OF AMCA 5TH GENERATION FIGHTER JET ( I know it's irrelevant at present time but giving it just out of Curiosity, If anyone dislikes I am apologising in Advance):
MY SUGGESTED NAME IS: " SHYEN- V" or, " SHYEN" only.
My explanation: ' SHYEN ' means 'FALCON' or 'HAWK' in SANSKRIT & 'V' for 5 or, 5th generation.
It was a suggestion only. If anyone has any better suggestion please give .
MY SUGGESTED NAME IS: " SHYEN- V" or, " SHYEN" only.
My explanation: ' SHYEN ' means 'FALCON' or 'HAWK' in SANSKRIT & 'V' for 5 or, 5th generation.
It was a suggestion only. If anyone has any better suggestion please give .
How many Mk-3s can this IWB accommodate using these dimensions for the missile:
Current IWB is 4.2 m long, the missile is shown as ~4.4m. Assume the length is not an issue.
I already answered this in Dec 2024. I wish if any of our 3D artists provided these simple schematic 2D projections.
> The public data shows Astr-1,2,3, to be same length of 3.84m. Astr-1,2 diameter is 178mm & Astr-3 SFDR dia. is 200mm.
> The test missile can be a TD. It doesn't mean it can't be customised. The decision to customize or not is another thing. But as technology progresses rapidly but if our makers don't catch up with their manufacturing tools & CUSTOM products then it creates very bad impression globally. Our DrDO & DPSUs while in certain things have done many good jobs but still in many things we've been begging for ToT. So we don't have problem with aptitude but that with management & coordination not happening timely. So 5gen platform will need 5gen weapons.
> On 21 Dec 2024, i showed via approximate scaled diagrams that current design of Astr-3 SFDR is making it difficult to fit more than 2x in each IWB due to its long Ramjet intakes.
> On 28 Dec 2024, i showed if intakes are modifiednear fins, then it can aid in staggering 3x AAMs easily.
> On 30 Dec 2024, i showed that with folding fins, 3x is possible in each side IWB.
200mm dia. + 2x50mm intake width = 300mm for each AAM.
In IWB width of 1,100mm, the AAMs would take 3x300mm = 900mm giving 200mm/4=50mm gaps.
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
I can not think of a situation where IAF might want or need 3 astras in a single patrol. Like the iwb and normal outer station carriage capacity it will always be 2 max which is enough since our jets are patrolling within our airspace mostly plus the IOR, Arabian sea and adjacent areas etc. This...
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
Fitting Ramjet missiles is a challenge bcoz of their long intakes, it becomes difficult to stagger them. There is an early render by artist Kuntal Biswas of 2 Astr-3 SFDR /bay, total 4 AAMs, but pic is angled, the bay is short with big gap in between. He has also made multiple CADs of Astr-3...
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
Fitting Ramjet missiles is a challenge bcoz of their long intakes, it becomes difficult to stagger them. There is an early render by artist Kuntal Biswas of 2 Astr-3 SFDR /bay, total 4 AAMs, but pic is angled, the bay is short with big gap in between. He has also made multiple CADs of Astr-3...
I think artist Kuntal Biswas didn't give front view of SFDR, atleast i don't have it, so i took that of Meteor AAM by Akela-Freedom for notional representation.
Small errors 
1.02 > 0.98 (wet T/STOW)
1.27 > 1.24 (after firing some BVR-AAMs)
If still there are errors, please excuse my low IQ
wet TWR = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / 12+3.25+(2x154 + 2x88)/1000} = 20/15.734 = 1.27
With 50% fuel used & firing 6 BVR-AAMs, with 2 CCMs & 4 BVR-AAMs left, wet TWR = 2x98 KN / 9.8 / {12+3.25+(4x154 + 2x88)/1000} = 20/16.042 = 1.24 (earlier 1.27)
1.02 > 0.98 (wet T/STOW)
1.27 > 1.24 (after firing some BVR-AAMs)
If still there are errors, please excuse my low IQ
IDK how redesigned AMCA can be smaller & lighter further. I don't think it is possible bcoz 5.5gen means overlap with 6gen, so some more equipment, weapons, fuel would be needed. Then to balance TWR, better engine, ideally a VCE would be required which would again slightly increase weight. So our JV can make smaller VCE of 110-130KN & other strong VCE of 200-250KN for other future projects.
But for now, i showed what the current airframe is capable of, looking at YF-22 Vs F-22 & X-35 Vs F-35. The X-35 didn't even have IWB.
But today the F-35 is getting 4 to 6 AAMs upgrade + new custom weapons for it & F-22. The J-31/35'll also get it.
Similarly the AMCA prototype, you can call it X-AMCA or Y-AMCA or AMCA-TD or AMCA Mk1, etc,
can be like it has been projected, and the inducted jet would be a pumped up version, AMCA Mk2 or simply the AMCA.
AMCA program started in 2010, the CCS approval has been very late, so the protoype couldn't fly even in 15 years so far.
Bcoz IWB is old concept at least since F-102 Delta-Dagger in 1950s, so in the worst case, 6+2 AAMs config should be implemented. If not 10+4 then 8+4 or 8+2 should definitely get implemented in 1st IOC batch. With today's materials, technologies, there should not be any problems with 70+ year old IWB concept. Inducting current AMCA model with 4 AAMs after 10 years in 2035, that's 45 years after revealling YF-22/23, would be like inducting a refurbished X/Y jet museum piece.
Also, we've discussed this before - Our UCAV progress is pathetic. Even USA is yet to show group flying as it needs collision avoidance safety with proximity sensors. So, relying on UCAVs for missile shots is not good. The UCAVs themselves should be survivable, not target practice objects.
GoI/MoD/IAF said this year is going to be of reforms. So they should get whatever funding, tools, facilities, people are needed.
We have already made 4 mistakes - late LCA, late 4gen MWF, late 4gen TEDBF, late 4gen Rafale. We should not make mistakes again with AMCA otherwise more MRFA import tenders are waiting.
I think 4.2m X 2.2m X 0.75m is big enough for a medium jet's IWB. It can have custom weapons like AGM-88G AARGM-ER, JSM/NSM with folding fins. That also i showed on 13th & 26th Jan-25.
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
Fitting Ramjet missiles is a challenge bcoz of their long intakes, it becomes difficult to stagger them. There is an early render by artist Kuntal Biswas of 2 Astr-3 SFDR /bay, total 4 AAMs, but pic is angled, the bay is short with big gap in between. He has also made multiple CADs of Astr-3...
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
F 35 can scare China more than Rafale. F35 can prove to be very effective against Chinese AC and ships in ocean. It can perform certain missions which Gripen can not perform. However, Gripen too have some great capability. We need atleast 2 to 3 squadron of both plane in addition to what we have...
IMO, SWB for CCMs is very important for 5+gen jet. Even 1-engine Su-75 will have it.
The SWB of Su-57 comes from wing root, not side walls of fuselage/engine-nacelle.
Also, i saw 3D CAD of conceptual F/A-XX. So they inspired me to have slightly bigger SWB for 2 CCMs.
I've not thought in detail about the launching mechanism.
Structurally, the AAMs should not be mounted on door, but the door & AAM-rail-launcher could be attached to swing-out arm, otherwise the hinges & door would have lot of stress created by Moment of Inertia of AAM & rail-launcher, directly proportional to mass & radius.
It could be a combo of Su-57 & J-20 mechanism, or Su-57 & F-22, or like f-22 only but twin rails.
That's NORMAL part of engineering. It is the very daily job of engineers for which they get very good salary, perks. Repeating myself - We had IT boom in 1990s when i was in school. We're well into affordable Supercomputing, CAD, CFD tools, robotics, other automation. Our ISRO labs are stae of the art, if DoD can't catch up then it is combined fault of them & GoI/MoD.
1 day the automobile industry will leave them behind.NOTE - For people out of a professional domain, some big tasks appear way too difficult & monumental. I can't do a surgery
, nor can i drive a bus/truck in mountains
. Anyhow, can you calculate the dry & wet TWR for the AMCA Mk-2? Assume the same loadout that you have proposed except with Astra Mk-3, assume each Mk-3 is 200 kgs. Each engine has 70 kN dry & 110 kN wet.
From this slide the AMCA Mk-2 will super cruise at M1.3 at 12 km with just 36 kN thrust from each engine. The MTOW by my rough calculations come out to be around 28-32 tons.
That's so simple.
empty weight = 12 tons
internal fuel = 6.5 tons
We can have max 6 Astr-3 SFDR, that's 6x200Kg = 1,200 Kg
4 CCMs = 4x88 = 352 Kg.
So STOW = 12+6.5+1.2+0.352 = 20.052 tons.
Wet TWR = 2x110/9.8 / 20.052 = 1.12
Comparing with F-22's - 2x156/9.8 / (19.7+8.2+1.1) = 1.1
MTOW, depending upon thrust & lift, can be considered roughly 2x +/- of empty weight, so 24+/- tons for AMCA, 25tons curretly quoted.
As per some studied TWR range, too much thrust is considered waste of payload potential. And utilysing airframe payload potential but weak engine also not good.
Supercruising depends on not just TWR but airframe design also. I explained it in past on 26th July 2024
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
All military grade software is tweaked accordingly, so intel/windows all are fine!
Last edited:
Nice.I already answered this in Dec 2024. I wish if any of our 3D artists provided these simple schematic 2D projections.
> The public data shows Astr-1,2,3, to be same length of 3.84m. Astr-1,2 diameter is 178mm & Astr-3 SFDR dia. is 200mm.
> The test missile can be a TD. It doesn't mean it can't be customised. The decision to customize or not is another thing. But as technology progresses rapidly but if our makers don't catch up with their manufacturing tools & CUSTOM products then it creates very bad impression globally. Our DrDO & DPSUs while in certain things have done many good jobs but still in many things we've been begging for ToT. So we don't have problem with aptitude but that with management & coordination not happening timely. So 5gen platform will need 5gen weapons.
> On 21 Dec 2024, i showed via approximate scaled diagrams that current design of Astr-3 SFDR is making it difficult to fit more than 2x in each IWB due to its long Ramjet intakes.
View attachment 42473
> On 28 Dec 2024, i showed if intakes are modifiednear fins, then it can aid in staggering 3x AAMs easily.
View attachment 42472
> On 30 Dec 2024, i showed that with folding fins, 3x is possible in each side IWB.
200mm dia. + 2x50mm intake width = 300mm for each AAM.
In IWB width of 1,100mm, the AAMs would take 3x300mm = 900mm giving 200mm/4=50mm gaps.
View attachment 42471
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
I can not think of a situation where IAF might want or need 3 astras in a single patrol. Like the iwb and normal outer station carriage capacity it will always be 2 max which is enough since our jets are patrolling within our airspace mostly plus the IOR, Arabian sea and adjacent areas etc. This...www.strategicfront.org
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
Fitting Ramjet missiles is a challenge bcoz of their long intakes, it becomes difficult to stagger them. There is an early render by artist Kuntal Biswas of 2 Astr-3 SFDR /bay, total 4 AAMs, but pic is angled, the bay is short with big gap in between. He has also made multiple CADs of Astr-3...
ADA AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft
Fitting Ramjet missiles is a challenge bcoz of their long intakes, it becomes difficult to stagger them. There is an early render by artist Kuntal Biswas of 2 Astr-3 SFDR /bay, total 4 AAMs, but pic is angled, the bay is short with big gap in between. He has also made multiple CADs of Astr-3...
I think artist Kuntal Biswas didn't give front view of SFDR, atleast i don't have it, so i took that of Meteor AAM by Akela-Freedom for notional representation.
View attachment 42474
I said the opposite of that. AMCA Mk-1 will be powered by the F-414 & Mk-2 will be powered by the upcoming engine. Since the new engine will be more powerful than the F-414, I thought the jet needs to grow with it.
I agree about more equipment needed for 5.5 gen capabilities. That is why I think the Mk-2 will have to be bigger.
The way we run programs this could very much happen.With today's materials, technologies, there should not be any problems with 70+ year old IWB concept. Inducting current AMCA model with 4 AAMs after 10 years in 2035, that's 45 years after revealling YF-22/23, would be like inducting a refurbished X/Y jet museum piece.
They say these things every now & then. I tend not to believe them.
Are SWBs faster in launching missiles?IMO, SWB for CCMs is very important for 5+gen jet. Even 1-engine Su-75 will have it.
The SWB of Su-57 comes from wing root, not side walls of fuselage/engine-nacelle.
Also, i saw 3D CAD of conceptual F/A-XX. So they inspired me to have slightly bigger SWB for 2 CCMs.
I've not thought in detail about the launching mechanism.
Structurally, the AAMs should not be mounted on door, but the door & AAM-rail-launcher could be attached to swing-out arm, otherwise the hinges & door would have lot of stress created by Moment of Inertia of AAM & rail-launcher, directly proportional to mass & radius.
It could be a combo of Su-57 & J-20 mechanism, or Su-57 & F-22, or like f-22 only but twin rails.
compared to what? IWB?SWB door is shorter than IWB door, so it might open/close faster.
But IWB launcher punches out BVR-AAM aided by gravity, while SWB uses rail-launcher for CCM, needing little more time, even in LOAL mode.
Overall launch time might be same or have negligible difference.
Expectations are different from reality.
F-22, J-20 etc use engines of 1.5 m dia giving them wider WBs. AMCA will use a 1 m engine. Its overall fuselage thickness is not sufficient for large WBs.
We have official answers already.
This is sufficient for both A2A and A2G roles.
People need to come back to planet Earth.
F-22, J-20 etc use engines of 1.5 m dia giving them wider WBs. AMCA will use a 1 m engine. Its overall fuselage thickness is not sufficient for large WBs.
We have official answers already.
This is sufficient for both A2A and A2G roles.
People need to come back to planet Earth.
It was just a NOTIONAL quick edit in MS Paint, not exact schematic in CATIA kind of S/w
1 post can't explain everything, so people need to be patient, not panic.
When Boeing, LM, NG, etc have different designs, then inside totalitarian monopolistic PSU industry & across the country also differences of opinions among employees & qualified citizens will exist. Expectations are always more than reality, that's why new/future R&D, MLU happens.
Some think our Astr AAMs, SAMs, AGMs will have 100% PK, no CCM needed, AMCA will be best BUT Pakistani AIM-120 AMRAAMs & Chinese PL-15s, their SAMs, AGMs will have 0% PK & their jets will be cola cans.
Some think - some more AAMs = UFO
May be NGAD makers are aliens 
or helped by them at AREA-51. Using 1.5 tons IWB fully for A-G mode but not for A-A mode.Losses will be on both sides, so letting cheap UCAVs take the hit is good idea, so Manned jet is like BOSS & Wingmen UCAVs like its bodyguards but which can be & WILL BE defeated & got through, so the boss should not be weak. Overconfidence w/o contingencies is very bad.
Anyways, while searching for F-18 SH's stealth pod, i found F-18 SH stealth derivative by some artist on Reddit site:
( )
BTW, this is 11 years ago
Unfortunately 2D views of this 3D art are not available.
We also had a caret-intake model earlier & F-18 SH has such identical intakes.
So just for the sake of some similarity & 2xF414 engines, let's compare the F-18 SH upgrade proposed with CFT + stealth pod, with AMCA.
Otherwise 4gen vs 5gen doesn't compare, different components by different makers in different era.
The aerodynamics are also different.
This is just to see what the 2xF414 engines are pushing.
F-18 SH empty weight = base + 2x CFT = 14.5 + 2x0.4 = 15.3 tons.
Internal fuel = 6.7 tons + 3.2 tons total in 2x CFTs = 9.9 tons.
AAMs tons = 4x AIM-120 + 2x AIM-9X = 2*(162+162+85)/1000 = 0.818 tons.
AMCA AAMs tons = 4x154 Kg Astr AAMs = 0.616 tons.
Wet TWR should be at least 1.1
Bcoz 196 KN wet thrust is 62.8% of F-22's, so to have same TWR, all the weights on average should be 62.8%. The empty, fuel, weapons, external load weights can vary but total STOW & MTOW should not exceed 62.8% ideally. But AMCA's AA-STOW is 19.116 tons (65.8%), AG-STOW is 20 tons (68.3%) & MTOW is 27 tons (71%) & that of F-18 SH is even more - 90%(4+2 AAMs) & 79% MTOW. For us not having engine options YET it is a desperate compelling situation, but USA's or any maker nation's domestic engines can have more thust than export versions, which could be kept classified.
Moreover, bcoz F-18 has perpendicular wing with higher drag & lift for carrier ops, but AMCA being AF jet has better swept wings,
hence F-18 can haul more weight, but AMCA would cruise much better, longer, farther.
Let's see approximate scaled comparison b/w AMCA's caret-intake model, DSI model & F-18 SH with CFT & EWP model.
From top view, even in the F-18 non-CFT base model the forward fuselage is very skinny, the intakes start much back near LER, wing span more but area is less than AMCA, but still its empty & fuel weights are more.
From front view, AMCA appears more voluminous than non-CFT base model, but the CFT model looks little more voluminous. But the fuel weight difference is a lot - 6.5 Vs 9.9 (6.7+3.2) tons.
The EWP (External Weapons Pod) arranges 4x AAMs in 2 layers, 2x2 order. But for a brand new design, same 4 AAMs would be arranged linearly, like in AMCA or any steath jet.
