AHCA (Advanced Heavy Combat Aircraft) concept, 5/5.5/6gen? Su-30MKI replacement? TEDBF 2.0?

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

CAUTION/DISCLAIMER:
- This thread is inspired by global tech evolution, R&D & big jets like Su-3X including Naval variant Su-33.
- On casual forum, there is no need to wait for official govt. or DoD statements.
- Neither global tech evolution waits for lagging countries, nor Discussions for every component to mature & be available.

>Some day upgraded Super-Su-30MKI will need replacement by similar size & weight jet due to technological advancement, requirement of 5th-6th gen. Even after Super-Sukhoi upgrade which is analogous to Su-35-S, the RCS & IRS will be quite high.
>The radars, SAMs, AAMs have improved a lot. The latest ones are made aiming 5th gen jets.
>The frontline jets have to be latest gen/tech to act like spies & snipers, which can be supplemented by previous gen jets following behind.
>When the engine &/or airframe design are inadequate, a new airframe & new/modified components are required then a gen leap occurs, who's R&D takes time in decades, hence EU dumped 5th gen & moved to 6th gen FCAS & GCAP to catch up with USA. That's the answer to how can we make 6gen w/o 5gen.
>Hence AMCA & similar jets also may not have adequate thrust, volume for payload, fuel & advanced equipments, range/endurance. Otherwise AMCA in stealth config w/o any CCMs should be expected to use 4 BVR-AAMs with 100% Pk & then kill any adversary with gun.
>Bharat's attempt to make AMCA is sluggish like LCA, bcoz we couldn't get good engines, or even average engines, by self/import/JV to experiment with prototypes, but we are fine with using average engines on active duty jets.
>Bharat exited PAKFA/FGFA project with Russia due to lack of ToT of Su-57. Now there are speculations to get some as stopgap measure.
>China has good numbers of J-20, will have more of it, & will have derivatives of J-31/35.
>S.Korea producing KF-21 Boramae has population of 51.7 million & around 100,000 sqKm. KF-21 will most likely improve like X-35 became F-35.
>Sweden with area 450,000+ sqKm has population 10.6 million with history of making good jets. They were studying on their 5gen Flygsystem 2020. Later there were talks to join GCAP or FCAS. They may announce some surprise any day.
>Turkey with area 783,000+ sqKm & population 86.2 million had its 1st flight of Kaan.
>Kaan & J-31 can be offered to Pakistan.
>Pakistan & China might attept to make 1-engine PFX to replace JF-17.
>Su-57's local numbers are less & no export orders. Russian Su-30/33/35 might get replaced by Su-57 but Russia may develop another jet to counter Western 6th gen designs but may not share ToT with us.
>We already know an outline of differences b/w 5th & 6th gen features, some of which can overlap.

>An empty 5th gen jet also added weight due to permanent inbuilt sensors, EW antennas, fuel tanks, OBOGS, HXs, decoys, etc.
>An empty 6th gen jet also adds more weight due to inbuilt DEW, more computing, C3 system, variable-cycle engine, longer range missiles, stronger EW, etc.
>Increased stealth also demands sufficient weapons carried internally, higher stand-off launch range, bigger NEZ, higher Pk.
>The NAVY jets are not going to face obsolete SAMs, AAMs, radars. Huge anti-surface weapons cannot fit internally. New gen compact weapons with folding fins are needed which can may not sink a surface vessel but immobilize or handicap it. Stronger landing gears, bigger folding wings may add 10-20% more weight depending upon airframe design. But a common airframe/fuselage design can save lots of money. The current TEDBF design is overall 4.5 gen with some components of 5th gen as per present day technologies, but if a next gen follow-on can be made by 2040s then it would be great. So a N-AHCA will be TEDBF 2.0 supplemented by current design.
>At present people say that NAL, ADA, DRDO don't have enough professionals to handle more than AMCA, LCA, MWF, TEDBF & upgrades of current jets.
>All above points puts pressure on Bharat to develop 5.5gen jet at least with adequate weapons, fuel, in a cost effective way.
>Whether funds are cleared for GTRE or JV or import, engines are need for AMCA, MWF, TEDBF & a future advanced heavy jet.
>ISRO has progressed well. If they can contribute anything like for Variable Cycle Engine, materials, compacting avionics, etc something which ADA, NAL, DRDO would take much more time, then IMO it should be considered.

Since days of T-10 prototype & other jets like MiG-25, F-15, our scientists & engineers might have at least discussed if some day they could also make such a home grown jet. And now IMO the R&D should proceed with whatever we have & can avail bcoz reaching Western quality levels will take decades.
I'm using edited cross-section of F-22, a jet flying well, rather than imaginery 6gen models.
CAUTION - The notional depiction doesn't mean all indicated weapons to be carried internally at once. Otherwise it will become a bomber. But a future customized fighter will need future customized weapons & multiple IWBs (Internal Weapons Bays).

We will try to examine individual aspects like payload, avionics, sensors, airframe, engines including Naval requirements but in new gen ways.

The above picture has been compiled similar to an older one comparing medium weight 1-engine jets of 4.5 generation F-16 & 5th generation F-35.

 

[Ginvincible]

CAUTION/DISCLAIMER:
- This thread is inspired by global tech evolution, R&D & big jets like Su-3X including Naval variant Su-33.
- On casual forum, there is no need to wait for official govt. or DoD statements.
- Neither global tech evolution waits for lagging countries, nor Discussions for every component to mature & be available.

>Some day upgraded Super-Su-30MKI will need replacement by similar size & weight jet due to technological advancement, requirement of 5th-6th gen. Even after Super-Sukhoi upgrade which is analogous to Su-35-S, the RCS & IRS will be quite high.
>The radars, SAMs, AAMs have improved a lot. The latest ones are made aiming 5th gen jets.
>The frontline jets have to be latest gen/tech to act like spies & snipers, which can be supplemented by previous gen jets following behind.
>When the engine &/or airframe design are inadequate, a new airframe & new/modified components are required then a gen leap occurs, who's R&D takes time in decades, hence EU dumped 5th gen & moved to 6th gen FCAS & GCAP to catch up with USA. That's the answer to how can we make 6gen w/o 5gen.
>Hence AMCA & similar jets also may not have adequate thrust, volume for payload, fuel & advanced equipments, range/endurance. Otherwise AMCA in stealth config w/o any CCMs should be expected to use 4 BVR-AAMs with 100% Pk & then kill any adversary with gun.
>Bharat's attempt to make AMCA is sluggish like LCA, bcoz we couldn't get good engines, or even average engines, by self/import/JV to experiment with prototypes, but we are fine with using average engines on active duty jets.
>Bharat exited PAKFA/FGFA project with Russia due to lack of ToT of Su-57. Now there are speculations to get some as stopgap measure.
>China has good numbers of J-20, will have more of it, & will have derivatives of J-31/35.
>S.Korea producing KF-21 Boramae has population of 51.7 million & around 100,000 sqKm. KF-21 will most likely improve like X-35 became F-35.
>Sweden with area 450,000+ sqKm has population 10.6 million with history of making good jets. They were studying on their 5gen Flygsystem 2020. Later there were talks to join GCAP or FCAS. They may announce some surprise any day.
>Turkey with area 783,000+ sqKm & population 86.2 million had its 1st flight of Kaan.
>Kaan & J-31 can be offered to Pakistan.
>Pakistan & China might attept to make 1-engine PFX to replace JF-17.
>Su-57's local numbers are less & no export orders. Russian Su-30/33/35 might get replaced by Su-57 but Russia may develop another jet to counter Western 6th gen designs but may not share ToT with us.
>We already know an outline of differences b/w 5th & 6th gen features, some of which can overlap.

View attachment 35465

>An empty 5th gen jet also added weight due to permanent inbuilt sensors, EW antennas, fuel tanks, OBOGS, HXs, decoys, etc.
>An empty 6th gen jet also adds more weight due to inbuilt DEW, more computing, C3 system, variable-cycle engine, longer range missiles, stronger EW, etc.
>Increased stealth also demands sufficient weapons carried internally, higher stand-off launch range, bigger NEZ, higher Pk.
>The NAVY jets are not going to face obsolete SAMs, AAMs, radars. Huge anti-surface weapons cannot fit internally. New gen compact weapons with folding fins are needed which can may not sink a surface vessel but immobilize or handicap it. Stronger landing gears, bigger folding wings may add 10-20% more weight depending upon airframe design. But a common airframe/fuselage design can save lots of money. The current TEDBF design is overall 4.5 gen with some components of 5th gen as per present day technologies, but if a next gen follow-on can be made by 2040s then it would be great. So a N-AHCA will be TEDBF 2.0 supplemented by current design.
>At present people say that NAL, ADA, DRDO don't have enough professionals to handle more than AMCA, LCA, MWF, TEDBF & upgrades of current jets.
>All above points puts pressure on Bharat to develop 5.5gen jet at least with adequate weapons, fuel, in a cost effective way.
>Whether funds are cleared for GTRE or JV or import, engines are need for AMCA, MWF, TEDBF & a future advanced heavy jet.
>ISRO has progressed well. If they can contribute anything like for Variable Cycle Engine, materials, compacting avionics, etc something which ADA, NAL, DRDO would take much more time, then IMO it should be considered.

Since days of T-10 prototype & other jets like MiG-25, F-15, our scientists & engineers might have at least discussed if some day they could also make such a home grown jet. And now IMO the R&D should proceed with whatever we have & can avail bcoz reaching Western quality levels will take decades.
I'm using edited cross-section of F-22, a jet flying well, rather than imaginery 6gen models.
CAUTION - The notional depiction doesn't mean all indicated weapons to be carried internally at once. Otherwise it will become a bomber. But a future customized fighter will need future customized weapons & multiple IWBs (Internal Weapons Bays).

We will try to examine individual aspects like payload, avionics, sensors, airframe, engines including Naval requirements but in new gen ways.

View attachment 35466
The above picture has been compiled similar to an older one comparing medium weight 1-engine jets of 4.5 generation F-16 & 5th generation F-35.

View attachment 35470

I mean I more or less agree with your viewpoints but I think that the actual 6th generation platforms will be fewer in number so it's okay if they are built slower and more thoughtfully. I think the big game changer with 6th generation will be the loyal wingman concept. Attritable and modular drone companions that can run cover for the main platform which might just be there to direct them instead of actually engage. It will probably lower the threshold for conflict but that's a conversation for another thread.

It's distributed lethality again, just in the air. I wouldn't be surprised if the NGAD is a much larger craft, with larger legs, and not very maneuverable. I don't even think the manned craft itself will need to carry a significant payload of actual weapons. Mostly sensors and computers to control the swarm. Perhaps the 6th generation will be the last generation of manned combat aircraft.

 

[Speedster1]

The AMCA is being designed as a 5.5G fighter from the outset. This should give us some breathing space as the specs for 6G solidify.

As most 5G designs today borrowed heavily form the F22/35, I expect the 6G scene to be much the same. Most of the artwork online depicts tailess, delta wing fighters. Take the British Tempest , NGAD, F/A-XX, for example. I, for one, would love to see a scaled up version of the original MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft) proposed by ADA some time in the early 2000s (with refinements of course). Recessed engines, 3d all axis TVC, flat engine nozzles, quantum based comm links, ultra wideband radar with interleaving ew modes, podded A2A laser, MUM-T, hypersonic missiles...the works

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

I mean I more or less agree with your viewpoints but I think that the actual 6th generation platforms will be fewer in number so it's okay if they are built slower and more thoughtfully. I think the big game changer with 6th generation will be the loyal wingman concept. Attritable and modular drone companions that can run cover for the main platform which might just be there to direct them instead of actually engage. It will probably lower the threshold for conflict but that's a conversation for another thread.

It's distributed lethality again, just in the air. I wouldn't be surprised if the NGAD is a much larger craft, with larger legs, and not very maneuverable. I don't even think the manned craft itself will need to carry a significant payload of actual weapons. Mostly sensors and computers to control the swarm. Perhaps the 6th generation will be the last generation of manned combat aircraft.

Yes, i guess in every gen it has happened - new gen jets arrive in small numbers, supplemented by current jets slowly retiring. Initially every new tech is costly, in 2-3 decades it becomes more affordable.
1 thing about the Loyal Wingman which i think is that they also need to have similar profile w.r.t. range, payload, etc.
Globally people are testing these boomerang, delta shaped UCAVs, some with slim fuselage & short wings. Most of these UCAVs have 1 engine.
ADA, NAL also working on CATS.
But these UCAVs cannot fly supersonic to intercept, evade. They cannot dogfight. They will be betting only with their high RF & IR stealth. But they will have to face 5th & 4.5 gen jets. They might end up as good target practice drones.

If we offload BVR-AAMs to wingmen then also the 6gen manned jet will need CCMs & DEW-CIWS at least, otherwise it is just a stealth ISTAR jet.
If AI enabled UAVs, UCAVs need to be instructed then it can be done from anywhere - AWACS, C4 jet, fighter jet, ground assets, bunker, HQ, etc. There should be continious sat-uplink.

W.r.t. AHCA, i can't expect NAL, ADA to be like LM, NG. Hence at 1st i imagined AHCA to be AMCA inflated to something like a Naval F-22 with a good JV engine.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

The AMCA is being designed as a 5.5G fighter from the outset. This should give us some breathing space as the specs for 6G solidify.

As most 5G designs today borrowed heavily form the F22/35, I expect the 6G scene to be much the same. Most of the artwork online depicts tailess, delta wing fighters. Take the British Tempest , NGAD, F/A-XX, for example. I, for one, would love to see a scaled up version of the original MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft) proposed by ADA some time in the early 2000s (with refinements of course). Recessed engines, 3d all axis TVC, flat engine nozzles, quantum based comm links, ultra wideband radar with interleaving ew modes, podded A2A laser, MUM-T, hypersonic missiles...the works

The specs of 6gen are already solidified & being tested secretly but we are running 30-40 years behind USA, that's what has taken away our breathing space. They will be revealed just like the B-21.
Russia, EU, China, Japan can do R&D & somehow create something different. But we have so many problems - social, political, financial, industrial, etc.

That MCA design might become the skeleton of AHCA.

 

[randomradio]

The closest we can expect the industry to begin the conceptualization of a post-AMCA fighter, as I'd like to call it, is possible only after 2030.

When MCA was first conceptualized, the Western industry was so far ahead that MCA's cousins in the form of Typhoon and Rafale were already flying. And when AMCA was conceptualized, the F-22 was operational and the F-35 was undergoing a rather public flight testing. So designing AMCA relative to the rest of the world was quite easy.

Otoh, today these next gen concepts are still secrets. We do not have a clear picture of NGAD, NgAD, FCAS, GCAP, J-XX and PAK DP. MRFA could open doors for the IAF over the next few years, and this could kickstart the development of our own equivalent or better.

The timeframe needs to be considered too. The first MKI is expected to be replaced in 2055, ie, 30 years away. So ADA needs to start their program officially sometime around 2040. That gives the IAF and ADA 15 years to create requirements, conceptualize it and begin the preliminary design stage in 2040. This in turn will give GTRE 10 years to develop AMCA's engine, begin conceptualization of a next gen engine around 2030, design and begin testing the engine by 2040, followed by 10 years to fully develop the engine for AHCA. That's a decent 20 years for GTRE, with another 5 years to make up for delays, if we assume phased engine introduction.

In the meantime, I believe the IN's next gen jet will hit the scene first. They need a CATOBAR-capable medium weight fighter between 2045-50 for their flat-top carrier fleet. Assuming a Vikrant sister ship is built before 2035, we could assume a flat-top will be built between 2040 and 2050. And this fighter could very easily bridge the technology gap between AMCA and AHCA.

So we will have ourselves a 5.5th gen AMCA by 2035-40, a 6th gen naval fighter by 2045-50 and a 7th gen MKI-replacement by 2055-60.

With that said, I envisage the AHCA to primarily be centered around battlespace command using high-end sensors while leaving most combat-related activities to drones and the rest of the manned fleet (AMCA, LCA, MRFA, MKI etc). It may or may not directly deal with enemy fighters and SAMs. Or we could see one manned AHCA directing multiple unmanned AHCAs. This would mean AHCAs could carry DEW, AAMs and bombs designed to deal with soft-skinned targets (like SAM trucks), with accompanying drones taking care of the hardened targets.

AHCA will be expected to have very high endurance and even achieve stratospheric heights, that's 50 km. A later version may be designed to operate in exo-atmosphere or even outer space. Although the outer space version could likely be a successor to the AHCA. I'm curious to know how the IAF will react to the PAK DP, it's expected to operate at stratospheric heights at the minimum.

Anyway I believe we are still many years away from even thinking of starting such programs. I'm just hoping we get through LCA Mk2, MKI MLU and AMCA in the next 5 years.

This is my two paisa on the topic.

 

[Speedster1]

The timelines are far too distant to predict what shape a prospective 6G will take. There are rumors the USAF may be delaying the NGAD prog for now and focusing on component elements like CCA - collaborative combat aircraft. Likewise, France's FCAS is now expected to arrive in the 2050s after Germany decided to get the F35 to replace its Tornados. So its all up in the air right now, quite literally . Who knows the Russians might come up a disruptive hypersonic design. I hear the MiG 41 high alt interceptor is going to be hypersonic.

As regards a future naval fighter, I think we need to take an incremental approach just like the Koreans are doing with the KAI KF21. ADA has done a lot of work on the delta platform with the NLCA Mk1. (levcons, tailerons, etc) We should port that over to the TEDBF, retain the chined front fuselage featured in the early mockup shown at Aero India and ditch the canard configuration we currently have. Doesn't need to have rear aspect stealth right now.
Over a decade from now, the goal should be to evolve it into a 6G tailess delta with internal weapon bays, conformal antennas, stealth, all aspect TVC, and all the other goodies. This should reduce dev risks, cut costs and timelines while giving the IAF a path to replace the MKI due course.
But we seem to be jumping into the Rafale bandwagon and then start working on a cleansheet 6G design. Waste of resources imo.

 

[Speedster1]

By that I mean modeling the TEDBF on the Rafale with no thought for future needs. Apparently, a 5G fighter is already on the INs wishlist but they accepted the current design as a compromise. An iterative approach will help us come up the curve faster.

 

[randomradio]

The timelines are far too distant to predict what shape a prospective 6G will take. There are rumors the USAF may be delaying the NGAD prog for now and focusing on component elements like CCA - collaborative combat aircraft. Likewise, France's FCAS is now expected to arrive in the 2050s after Germany decided to get the F35 to replace its Tornados. So its all up in the air right now, quite literally . Who knows the Russians might come up a disruptive hypersonic design. I hear the MiG 41 high alt interceptor is going to be hypersonic.

As regards a future naval fighter, I think we need to take an incremental approach just like the Koreans are doing with the KAI KF21. ADA has done a lot of work on the delta platform with the NLCA Mk1. (levcons, tailerons, etc) We should port that over to the TEDBF, retain the chined front fuselage featured in the early mockup shown at Aero India and ditch the canard configuration we currently have. Doesn't need to have rear aspect stealth right now.
Over a decade from now, the goal should be to evolve it into a 6G tailess delta with internal weapon bays, conformal antennas, stealth, all aspect TVC, and all the other goodies. This should reduce dev risks, cut costs and timelines while giving the IAF a path to replace the MKI due course.
But we seem to be jumping into the Rafale bandwagon and then start working on a cleansheet 6G design. Waste of resources imo.

We don't need to incrementally develop a 6th gen naval fighter, the N-LCA, LCA Mk2/TEDBF and AMCA more than bridge the gap.

I won't be surprised if the naval fighter ends up as a collaboration with the French consortium as well, depending on whether the IN's fine with a medium-sized jet (25-27T) or the much bigger FCAS (33T). The former's just AMCA class, we will have all the tech ready for it, but the latter will require bigger 15+T engines.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

The closest we can expect the industry to begin the conceptualization of a post-AMCA fighter, as I'd like to call it, is possible only after 2030.

When MCA was first conceptualized, the Western industry was so far ahead that MCA's cousins in the form of Typhoon and Rafale were already flying. And when AMCA was conceptualized, the F-22 was operational and the F-35 was undergoing a rather public flight testing. So designing AMCA relative to the rest of the world was quite easy.

Otoh, today these next gen concepts are still secrets. We do not have a clear picture of NGAD, NgAD, FCAS, GCAP, J-XX and PAK DP. MRFA could open doors for the IAF over the next few years, and this could kickstart the development of our own equivalent or better.

The timeframe needs to be considered too. The first MKI is expected to be replaced in 2055, ie, 30 years away. So ADA needs to start their program officially sometime around 2040. That gives the IAF and ADA 15 years to create requirements, conceptualize it and begin the preliminary design stage in 2040. This in turn will give GTRE 10 years to develop AMCA's engine, begin conceptualization of a next gen engine around 2030, design and begin testing the engine by 2040, followed by 10 years to fully develop the engine for AHCA. That's a decent 20 years for GTRE, with another 5 years to make up for delays, if we assume phased engine introduction.

In the meantime, I believe the IN's next gen jet will hit the scene first. They need a CATOBAR-capable medium weight fighter between 2045-50 for their flat-top carrier fleet. Assuming a Vikrant sister ship is built before 2035, we could assume a flat-top will be built between 2040 and 2050. And this fighter could very easily bridge the technology gap between AMCA and AHCA.

So we will have ourselves a 5.5th gen AMCA by 2035-40, a 6th gen naval fighter by 2045-50 and a 7th gen MKI-replacement by 2055-60.

With that said, I envisage the AHCA to primarily be centered around battlespace command using high-end sensors while leaving most combat-related activities to drones and the rest of the manned fleet (AMCA, LCA, MRFA, MKI etc). It may or may not directly deal with enemy fighters and SAMs. Or we could see one manned AHCA directing multiple unmanned AHCAs. This would mean AHCAs could carry DEW, AAMs and bombs designed to deal with soft-skinned targets (like SAM trucks), with accompanying drones taking care of the hardened targets.

AHCA will be expected to have very high endurance and even achieve stratospheric heights, that's 50 km. A later version may be designed to operate in exo-atmosphere or even outer space. Although the outer space version could likely be a successor to the AHCA. I'm curious to know how the IAF will react to the PAK DP, it's expected to operate at stratospheric heights at the minimum.

Anyway I believe we are still many years away from even thinking of starting such programs. I'm just hoping we get through LCA Mk2, MKI MLU and AMCA in the next 5 years.

This is my two paisa on the topic.

That's a good analysis looking at our Kumbhakaran GoI/MoD/DoD & so many social, political, financial, industrial problems.

Concept, Statements, RFI:
> RFI & following works are official thing under which they will have to do & show something. IAF made 1 line statement that they have roadmap of 6gen, that's it, that could be AHCA. But someone need to ask them upfront bluntly what is their vision at least.
- After AMCA MK1, they will be busy with AMCA MK2, TEDBF, UCAVs, CATS.
- Super-Sukhoi upgrade is being said to take another decade & after that also its IRS & RCS can't be reduced bcoz of airframe design. So if they really wan't to keep it till 2055 then they can & have to field it against Su-30 MKK, J-11, J-16, Su-35-S & other 4.5gen jets J-10C, JF-17.
- But until our people stop comparing with Pakistan & China, it is impossible to bridge gap with West. USA didn't compare itself with South American countries.
- Conceptualization is always in the mind. My college senior in early 2000s who worked on LCA told us about desire on medium & later a heavy jet like Su-3X. Who knows they might be talking since the days of F-15, MiG-25, Su-27 when our DoD units were stalled for import culture.

Engine:
>IDK how much time it took to make all the good engines so far, i'll have to do homework. If it takes 20-25yrs for a heavy fighter class jet engine then our effort should start today.
- People didn't want to use AL-31 engine for R&D stating its bad quality but they are proud & sentimental about Su-30MKI with huge RCS & IRS, using the same bad quality engine. Making just the AHCA prototype with AL-31 shouldn't have been a problem. F-16IN was offered with F110-GE-132A engine with dry/wet thrust of 84/145 KN. We are trying to deal for F404, F414 but IDK if we tried to deal for F110 type engine.
-The JV program should not focus only on F414 replacement for AMCA, TEDBF, MWF. If we can get a VCE or high thrust engine by self/JV/import by 2040 then AMCA can also be inflated to AHCA MK1, just like Tejas MK1 LCA is getting inflated to Tejas MK2 MWF. AMCA can reamin LSP till 1st squad of AHCA.
Tejas MK1 = LCA
Tejas Mk2 = MWF with no naval variant due to 1 engine, hence TEDBF.
XXXXX MK1 = AMCA LSP
XXXXX MK2 = AHCA MK1 with naval variant TEDBF 2.0

Navy:
>The Naval AHCA will definitely be dependent on a flat-top carrier like you said, perhaps with EMC (Electro Magnetic Catapult) but we can test the jet on ground & keep it ready for production when the carrier gets built.

AHCA profile vision:
> i'm not expecting AHCA to be 7gen which could be fully unmanned, needs different thread. 2 adjacant gens overlap & serve together by say 2-3 decades at least. USA inducted 5gen in 2010s. If 1st squads of 6gen get inducted in 2040s then 7gen should be expected to get inducted in 2070s. And we would do it much later, if our country remains stable. We don't even know what would be outline of 7gen, how to defeat 6gen, counter DEW, etc.
> I am certainly not expecting AHCA to reach 50Km/164,000Ft or become a Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV).
-The SSTO-STS shuttle was so costly & after Columbia disaster it was scrapped. There was no military version of STS & no follow-on plan so far.
-Beyond 55-60 Kft full mil power flight using turbofans becomes challenging.
-We operated MiG-25 which could sustain flight at 68-78K ft. with 2-4 missiles but using afterburner. The design cruising speed was Mach 2.35 (2,500 km/h) with partial afterburner for just 5 minutes. Max. range at Mach-2.3 was 1,600Km.
-Later, Russians built MiG-31 which could go upto 82K ft. but with afterburner.
-So using afterburner at high altitude & increasing IRS will defeat stealth idea.

By this thread i'm speculating only on getting a common fuselage AF+Navy jet for Su-30MKI replacement & new TEDBF by 2050.

 

[Barcid]

I am speculating that this project is a fantasy.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

I am speculating that this project is a fantasy.

Till enough funding is available, RFI is issued, official statements are made, secret projects are publicized, they all are fantasy only
People are talking about far future submarines, tanks, ships, etc but nothing on Su-30MKI replacement.
But that doesn't stop the scientists & engineers of lagging nations to unofficially discuss a desire/wish at least to have the latest stuff over tea/meal/occassion.
For confirmation you will need Ethan Hunt, James Bond, Black widow, etc.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Rest assured that those who are in the decision making are fully aware of our future air-power. Now we want AMCA's engine to be fully 6th-gen compatible. That is for a plane much bigger and capable than even AMCA.

MKI's RCS is going to be reduced considerably in UPG. version. Infra-Red Signature may go down too if use our own improved desi AL-31FP(looks like so). However, until meta-materials are ready for airframe work, nothing that is air-breathing and travelling at 900kmph+ at 25k+ feet could evade modern QWIP and future QDIP IRST sensors.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

The timelines are far too distant to predict what shape a prospective 6G will take. There are rumors the USAF may be delaying the NGAD prog for now and focusing on component elements like CCA - collaborative combat aircraft. Likewise, France's FCAS is now expected to arrive in the 2050s after Germany decided to get the F35 to replace its Tornados. So its all up in the air right now, quite literally . Who knows the Russians might come up a disruptive hypersonic design. I hear the MiG 41 high alt interceptor is going to be hypersonic.

If West & China have war in South China Sea(SCS) in this decade then it may delay global 6gen R&D. USA is doing 11 Bn$ of F-22 MLU & F-35 also getting ECU, etc. They could be put to test in Middle-East & SCS. Some current F-22 & F-35 deployed against Iran as per recent news.
Hypersonic jets have long time, 1st high supersonic jet have to be mastered. HySo jet will need so much fuel. HySo payload separation has to be safe.

As regards a future naval fighter, I think we need to take an incremental approach just like the Koreans are doing with the KAI KF21. ADA has done a lot of work on the delta platform with the NLCA Mk1. (levcons, tailerons, etc) We should port that over to the TEDBF, retain the chined front fuselage featured in the early mockup shown at Aero India and ditch the canard configuration we currently have. Doesn't need to have rear aspect stealth right now.
Over a decade from now, the goal should be to evolve it into a 6G tailess delta with internal weapon bays, conformal antennas, stealth, all aspect TVC, and all the other goodies. This should reduce dev risks, cut costs and timelines while giving the IAF a path to replace the MKI due course.
But we seem to be jumping into the Rafale bandwagon and then start working on a cleansheet 6G design. Waste of resources imo.

But Su-57's levcons are accused to increase RCS.

Navy immediately needs something to help MiG-29K hence they are procuring Rafale-M. Ideally, by this time TEDBF protoype should have flown.

 

[Rajput Lion]

If West & China have war in South China Sea(SCS) in this decade then it may delay global 6gen R&D. USA is doing 11 Bn$ of F-22 MLU & F-35 also getting ECU, etc. They could be put to test in Middle-East & SCS. Some current F-22 & F-35 deployed against Iran as per recent news.
Hypersonic jets have long time, 1st high supersonic jet have to be mastered. HySo jet will need so much fuel. HySo payload separation has to be safe.

China definitely would be USAF's biggest challenge.

But Su-57's levcons are accused to increase RCS.

Navy immediately needs something to help MiG-29K hence they are procuring Rafale-M. Ideally, by this time TEDBF protoype should have flown.

LEVCONS are so much better than Canards in-terms of both low-RCS and drag penalty. As per some Russian rumours, Sukhoi are looking for navalized Su-57Ms. Thanks to LEVCONS it's carrier ready in terms of aerodynamics, just need to get its frame and undercarriage strengthened.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Rest assured that those who are in the decision making are fully aware of our future air-power. Now we want AMCA's engine to be fully 6th-gen compatible. That is for a plane much bigger and capable than even AMCA.

MKI's RCS is going to be reduced considerably in UPG. version. Infra-Red Signature may go down too if use our own improved desi AL-31FP(looks like so). However, until meta-materials are ready for airframe work, nothing that is air-breathing and travelling at 900kmph+ at 25k+ feet could evade modern QWIP and future QDIP IRST sensors.

Super-Sukhoi UPG infographic doesn't mention replacing metallic body with composite like fromMiG-29 to MiG-35, & putting a radar &/or thermal blocker in the intakes like in Su-57 i guess.

So after all these MLUs also we will severly lag in RCS & IRS.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

LEVCONS are so much better than Canards in-terms of both low-RCS and drag penalty. As per some Russian rumours, Sukhoi are looking for navalized Su-57Ms. Thanks to LEVCONS it's carrier ready in terms of aerodynamics, just need to get its frame and undercarriage strengthened.

Netizens are saying that Su-57 RCS is more than J-20
If the MLG can retract laterally like in F-22 then Su-57 can also have SWB.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Super-Sukhoi UPG infographic doesn't mention replacing metallic body with composite like fromMiG-29 to MiG-35, & putting a radar &/or thermal blocker in the intakes like in Su-57 i guess.

View attachment 35579
View attachment 35580

So after all these MLUs also we will severly lag in RCS & IRS.

View attachment 35581
View attachment 35585

View attachment 35583
View attachment 35584

The poster is very old. MKI UPG. is still a work in progress. DL, Jodhpur has developed stealth RAP(radar absorbent paint) that is to be applied across entire airframe, intakes, compressor face etc. and it reduces RCS of legacy jets "significantly". MKI UPG. will even get superior RAP than what is available now.

Link: Radar Absorbing Paint applied on Mig-29 | DRDO working on 6th Gen engine technology


About Infra-Red signature, let's what our locally manufactured AL-31FP can achieve!

Netizens are saying that Su-57 RCS is more than J-20
If the MLG can retract laterally like in F-22 then Su-57 can also have SWB.

Problem is most people compare stage-1 Su-57(with AL-41F1 engines) with F-22/35 or J-20. It's has now got AL-51F1 engines installed that have much less RCS/IRS due to radar-blockers at both front/rear and much advance materials. They're in process of developing F-22 like flat nozzles too. Even now Su-57M with AL-51F1 engines has got serrated LOAN nozzles which reduce rear RCS significantly over previous version.

If Su-57 with LEVCONS is not stealthy, then how could J-20 be with its canards? Frontally Su-57 is as stealthy as Raptor(-40dBsm RCS in X-Band). From side/rear slighlty less.

 

[Speedster1]

Netizens are saying that Su-57 RCS is more than J-20

The Su57 is still WIP. Its intake is such that the engine compressor is exposed and the rear is distinctly non-stealthy. The levcons otoh blend into the wing and likely have a minimal impact on RCS by themselves.

 

[Speedster1]

Navy immediately needs something to help MiG-29K hence they are procuring Rafale-M. Ideally, by this time TEDBF protoype should have flown.

The Rafale will more than fill the carrier based strike and AD role on its own. But we have an opportunity to leverage hard won design lessons from the NLCA Mk1 and reuse it on the TEDBF. Otherwise, we're looking at a 10+ year development timeline by which time the J31 could be flying off PLAN carriers in numbers.

In any case, the TEDBF, in its current avatar will only provide incremental performance advantages over an F4 Rafale. I just think the TEDBF would be late to the party but the time she's ready.