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

[HariPrasad]

> From global tech evolution PoV, we are seeing dawn of era of 6gen & dusk of era of 5gen. The leader nation(s) won't wait for lagging nations to catch up bcoz it is domination + business.
> You should understand a simple thing that Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese are just pushing 4.5gen to rest of world so that they can fund their R&D of future tech & we have been falling in that quicksand.

- The MLUed 4gen are just gap fillers now, even the future Rafale F5/F6 & EF-2000 Tranche-5/6. Don't forget GCAP & FCAS.​

- If any nation has or will have 5/6gen jet then it will always use them to spearhead a battle followed behind by 4.5gen. FCAS will lead, Rafale will follow; GCAP will lead, EF-2000 will follow; F-22+F-35 will lead, F-15/16/18 will follow; J-20+J-35 will lead, J-10/11/15/16 will follow.​

> So if you or anybody wanna talk about medium jet then talk about a stealthy one.

- F-35 is the only active service stealth medium jet. J-35 is being revealed at Zhuai airshow. Kaan is intermediate b/w medium & heavy.​

- So you should compare with these jets. Compare F-22 Vs F-35, Su-57 Vs Su-75, J-20 Vs J-35. AFAIK, even the NGAD will have 1 medium & 1 heavy jet. Why comparing 4gen jets design?​

> So now among any class of stealth jet, it is simple maths to maintain TWR, as the internal load or STOW (Stealth Take Off Weight) increase, so does the engine thrust & both parameters increase total STOW.
> But you & some other members are ignoring either the generation or firepower or both of a fighter.


> BY THAT LOGIC ANY LFA CAN ECONOMICALLY BEAT ANY MFA, THEN WHAT IS THE POINT IN BUILDING MEDIUM JET?
> I already gave you answer - payload delivered by an airframe per sortie & fuel used. It is Military Economics.
View attachment 37921
> You are not realizing that your point is calling Americans & Russians as foolish to have made F-15 & Su-3X in 4gen, then F-22 & Su-57 in 5gen & now again in 6gen.
> Although due to limited time i've stopped talking about 4gen everywhere, but from design PoV it is interesting to see that Rafale payload is 9.5T, F-18E has 8T, while the Sukhois can carry upto 8T only. Although F-15E can carry 10.4T.

- May be delta-canard gives more payload MTOW than tandem biplane.​

- But it is also said that canard design is less stealthier than tandem biplane.​

- Sukhois have clipped delta wing which prioritizes to reduce drag & its outcome could be lesser wing load, IDK for sure.​

- It also depends on skeleton structure designed by mechanical engineers. If we tell 10 teams to use CAD & design exact same structure then also there will be noticeable differences.​

- Most advanced Flanker is Su-35-S, certainly not current MKI. I wonder what Russians have to say about Su-35 Vs Rafale/EF-2000.​

> The latest thing to note is that Europeans earlier opted for medium jets Rafale & EF-2000 but now the GCAP & FCAS are going to be heavy class jets bcoz of simple fact that 6gen characteristics of internal components increase so does engine with higher thrust & both increase weight.



> That's exactly the desease in our system since 1947 - pesimism, procrastination, delays, scams, lack of funds & R&D, excuses, blame game, import culture, underconfidence to make future oriented thing in time but overconfidence to win future war, ignorane & arrogance. And after celebratng 75 years also we are not lerning to move forward on time.
> I'm not taking about 5gen but whatever best we can do. We have developed RAM, we can design RAS geometry, all we need is a proper engine by self/JV/import.
> We are not just in era of advanced S/w, design tools but also AI, machine learning, advanced robotics, etc.
We have IT industry since 3.5 decades.
We have Super Computers. Lots of CFD sims & other tests can be done quickly.
Today it doesn't take so long to research & design something, be it an automobile or aircraft. The prototype flight tests can take time.
But still if we just boast about our global CEOs but not develop & use our own S/w tech for R&D on time then it is our fault.


That's what i said.



> After such easy, short, point-wise explanation also you wanna go reverse gear & want obsolete design to be RE-CREATED for next 50-60 years.
> It is not just about TWR but also stealth & firepower. There is no global standard or agreement on ideal dry/wet TWR but very high TWR means under-utilized payload capacity.
> What does ORCA mean - Omni Role Combat Aircraft, same as MRCA/MRFA (Multi Role Combat/Fighter Aircraft).
Conceptually, it looks like Mirage-2000+Rafale with no geometric treatment :
View attachment 37785
> Apart from composites & EW, neither ORCA, TEDBF, MWF have any geometric stealth nor Rafale, EF-2000, etc.
> The jet makers, USA, Russia, EU, China, all will stretch their 4gen for few more decades but none are stopping their R&D for future, but people like you want India to stop/stall is R&D, WHY?
> I explained many times that a gen leap occurs when the airframe design is obsolete & upgrading it further is not efficient.
> I also mentioned many times that from 1st gen to present & till eternty, a newer gen jet is supposed to defeat older gen jet most of the times.
> Every future jet needs to have a stealthy geometry, RAM, comprehensive EW.


> Why only frontal stealth? Is the enemy oblidged to attack only from front straight? A jet has to maneuver a lot due to navigation, terrain, SAMs & other threats from ground & air, so from other angles also geometric stealth cannot be compromised.
> EW is complex cat & mouse game. You think only Rafale has the best EW package? Every maker pitches their product to be best. And although there will be Rafale F5, F6 but France also developing FCAS, so why you're ignoring the advancements????
> Progressing & advacement requires to comapre with better things. If you will compare with existing jets of 4gen then it is stagnating, not progressing.


> We should never underestimate adversaries. China makes crap for the world with cheap labor & raw materials, but not for self.
> My vision of AHCA is 5.5gen to start with then modularly upgraded to 6gen.


> Don't worry. Everybody doesn't have same comprehension, creativity, intelligence, will power, persistence, consistency, etc.

> Although on a casual chat forum, different members have different qualification, experience, comprehension, perception, but we all are trying to mentally conceive something in different ways.
> We are already living an alternate surreal life since 1947, & even before it since 1,000 years of slavery.
> No need to compare with others. If we don't do R&D then our education system is getting wasted & will lead to brain-drain, massive unemployment, perhaps civil war.

> But we all are doing time pass chit chat here, isn't it? DoD not monitorng & looking for input from us. So either ways, don't discourage others if you don't wanna think.


Since 1947 we have seen all the practical approaches leading to imported replenishments.



> Didn't i say that if things went well with PAKFA then Su-57 would have been our AHCA.
> I also showed an edited diagram of Su-57 to notionally depict AHCA.
> But we had to exit PAKFA bcoz Russia took lot of money, didn't agree with our design suggestions & also not on ToT.

In very few occasions of my long history of discusser of Military affairs, my post has so explicitly been answered. Thank you very much for that. Since you have taken a long pain to answer my posts, let me read it again and again to understand it before I post reply. Thanks again for your elaborate answer bro. Cheers.

 

[HariPrasad]

> From global tech evolution PoV, we are seeing dawn of era of 6gen & dusk of era of 5gen. The leader nation(s) won't wait for lagging nations to catch up bcoz it is domination + business.

What you say is very true but what is on the ground. I remember a statement of A K Antony when he was Defense minister. He told that navy to finalize the specification of AC. After 12 years, it is not finalized yet. I heard about 12 to 13 years ago that JV for aero engine will be formed shortly. I hear same thing even today. I learned about hypersonic Brahmos becoming reality withing next 4 to 5 years. I hear same even today. Same is the case of ALH, Akash NG and almost all the systems. You need to be very proactive in nature and there should be no constrains of Fund. To need to achieve what you say, there are many factors which should be in place. In reality, we plan ambitious things and when it does not come in time as planned, we go out and purchase stuff from abroad which even we could have made ourselves. There are many such examples. MWF is a classical example. Had we been receiving them today couple of squadrons today or even half of that we would not be ruining for MMRCA today. So let us except reality and work accordingly. Our military and military R & D budget need to be at least double and with lots of autonomy to such institutions to come out with fast result. If these factors are not addressed, batter we should adopt a practical approach which works. Privatization has worked really well. Example is Joravar tank and K9 Vajra, some defense stuff made by Adani consortium etc. who has made the some really good stuff in very short time.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

In very few occasions of my long history of discusser of Military affairs, my post has so explicitly been answered. Thank you very much for that. Since you have taken a long pain to answer my posts, let me read it again and again to understand it before I post reply. Thanks again for your elaborate answer bro. Cheers.

You are most welcome, any time. This is just the beginning to explore this concept & pass time.
> When i have opened a thread on a new idea, it means -

- i've been observing & cooking it since years​

- it becomes my DUTY to clarify & try my best to make people understand it with best data - pictures, diagram, calculations, etc. I'm a low IQ techie so i'm just doing my part my way.​

> Anybody can give multiple text response from cellphone from anywhere, but that's not my way of discussing. I take my time & give collective reply point-wise.

What you say is very true but what is on the ground. I remember a statement of A K Antony when he was Defense minister. He told that navy to finalize the specification of AC. After 12 years, it is not finalized yet. I heard about 12 to 13 years ago that JV for aero engine will be formed shortly. I hear same thing even today. I learned about hypersonic Brahmos becoming reality withing next 4 to 5 years. I hear same even today. Same is the case of ALH, Akash NG and almost all the systems. You need to be very proactive in nature and there should be no constrains of Fund. To need to achieve what you say, there are many factors which should be in place. In reality, we plan ambitious things and when it does not come in time as planned, we go out and purchase stuff from abroad which even we could have made ourselves. There are many such examples. MWF is a classical example. Had we been receiving them today couple of squadrons today or even half of that we would not be ruining for MMRCA today. So let us except reality and work accordingly. Our military and military R & D budget need to be at least double and with lots of autonomy to such institutions to come out with fast result. If these factors are not addressed, batter we should adopt a practical approach which works. Privatization has worked really well. Example is Joravar tank and K9 Vajra, some defense stuff made by Adani consortium etc. who has made the some really good stuff in very short time.

> Everything has a START sometime, somewhere, somehow, BUT our START is not happening anywhere since decades anywhow bcoz people are not even willing to talk about it constructively, leave constructing the project.
> We all are frustrated with reality but what new are we bringing to a forum to discuss???????

- so we can speak of what should have been done​

- and what can be done starting today.​

NOTE - PRACTICAL means different for everyone.
> I learned in office that while complaining we should suggest solution or a work-around. That is 1 of the things which makes a person stand out in a crowd.

- So solution is proper 6gen jet, but it cannot be made by 2040. I think our 6gen prototype will come when USA will be retiring them.​

- Then work-around is to contiue AMCA & also use it as stepping stone. Just inflate it & put a higher thrust engine like AL-31/41, F-100 if USA agrees. That's your AHCA MK1. Now tell me what's so problematic about it when ISRO is making success??? And AI+ML+CAD=Fast design. The only hurdle is funding.​

> I'm not against privatization but Tata, Ambani, Adani, etc are not willing to invest money into R&D of engine & airframe.
> We need qualified politicians also in all parties at every level - MLA, MP, CM, PM, etc. But i think in this century at least we have tolerate unqualified, inappropriate people pulling the strings.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

CAUTION: members are free to share alternate ideas WITHIN this category of generation/weight/technology which can be started today & done within 5-10yrs. But those who disagree to this concept are free to open thread on their idea. But please don't discourage, suppress, hijack & piggyback off-context things. Ignore & move on. Thanks for understanding.
> Lately i showed that AMCA can carry 6 staggered short-fin BVR-AAMs & perhaps 8 staggered folding-fin BVRAAMs.
> IDK if CCM could/should have folding fins. The AMCA design doesn't seem to address firing CCM from IWB. It doesn't have SWB.
> But even all that may not be enough for a stealth jet bcoz now both offensive & defensive weapons have to be designed & carried.
> Missiles will improve & may/will become multi-spectral to increase Pk (Probabiity of Kill), but so does countermeasures & tactics. Pilot's life is priceless & the jets, manned or unmanned, will become costlier due to more technologies used. So both sides/aspects improve.
> IMO, a future stealth jet will need LAYERED APPROACH like IADS to address 3 ranges:
- BVR, with Ramjet AAMs. Ramjet has helped to increase range & speed w/o increasing size.
- WVR, if BVR AAMs get depleted, whether they hit or miss their targets.
- VSR, if BVR & WVR get depleted &/or enemy missile (SAM/AAM) get close. So either DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) or cetain # of self defence missiles like MSDM/CUDA/SACM which are like hard-kill APS (Active Protection System).

> All this becomes huge challenge for a single engine stealth jet, like Su-75 for example, which could carry 3 staggered BVR-AAMs + 2 CCMs, that's all. No signs of VSR-AAMs or DEW yet.:noidea:
> If CCM cannot have folding fins then AMCA currently can carry 4 staggered folding-fin BVR-AAMs + 2 CCMs internally, that's all.
So obviously AHCA is needed.

> Now we should decide the internal load for AHCA, how many :
- Ramjet LR-BVR-AAMs
- SR-CCMs
- VSR-MSDMs or DEW turrets.

> After this will come engine options available, time needed for new engines & # of engines required, to maintain certain dry/wet TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio), altitude, speed, range, endurance.

 

[mamiam23]

Unless one country has a very high Dry Thrust Engine like F-135 with a minimum of 120kN and put it in a Super Heavy Combat Aircraft at MTOW of 50-60 Tons along with High Aerodynamic and Efficient planform like Tailless Delta, they would struggle with accommodating with two different kinds of loads.

There are fundamental difference in how we conduct Air to Air Warfare and Air to Ground/Sea Warfare. In the former we need more bigger bays in terms of length like F-22 where as in the latter we need more deeper bays. Obviously in the latter configuration we could use some jugaad like sidekick in F-35 to cram missiles but the platform would be bulky and inefficient aerodynamically. We would like sleek and slick and the air to air missiles enable that not needing excessive diameter bays. Fundamentally both need different kind of airframe- one that focuses on multi role and slower and another one being Air Superiority and Air control.

What's the usage of deeper bays? Actually the combat capability of the Fighter could increase if it is able to accomodate LRASM size payload internally. Because the LRASM size platform is not only merely a Anti-Ship or Land-Attack Missile. In the similar dimensions we could make various Air Launched Effectors.
1. Boeing CHAMP esque Weapon that can be released and snoops ahead disabling enemy systems.
2. A Electronic Warfare Drone that's akin to a Drone-fied version of Raytheon F-18 Growler EW Pod.
3. A DARPA Long Shot drone that can be launched from Internal Bay and travel to some 100s of Km and then Open its own IWB and launch 1 or 2 AAMs. A LRASM or Tomahawk has 500kg warhead and a Meteor weights in only some 200kg. Obviously the challenge is not in Weight but in having long enough Weapon Bays to fit in such system.
4. A Prober/Forward Observer kind of System that can be launched and uses its Active/Passive Radar or IRST System to send data back.
5. A Air launched Decoy

Such above kind of Air Launched Effectors for a NGAD can make it supremely capable improving its combat capability so much. The most obvious kind is DARPA Longshot that can fit in internally. A LRASM has been touted as having 500km range and that too somewhat in medium to low altitudes but it would have increased range since Air Combat happens in high altitude almost giving it a 700-1000km range.

But even without such powerful engines we could make a heavy fighter at 35-Tons using AL-31F or aka 75-kN engines and eventually 100-kN. Obviously it would be slow as *censored* like F-35 but we can't have all. If AHCA has to be, it should be akin to like this below.

 

[Hydra]

Unless one country has a very high Dry Thrust Engine like F-135 with a minimum of 120kN and put it in a Super Heavy Combat Aircraft at MTOW of 50-60 Tons along with High Aerodynamic and Efficient planform like Tailless Delta, they would struggle with accommodating with two different kinds of loads.

There are fundamental difference in how we conduct Air to Air Warfare and Air to Ground/Sea Warfare. In the former we need more bigger bays in terms of length like F-22 where as in the latter we need more deeper bays. Obviously in the latter configuration we could use some jugaad like sidekick in F-35 to cram missiles but the platform would be bulky and inefficient aerodynamically. We would like sleek and slick and the air to air missiles enable that not needing excessive diameter bays. Fundamentally both need different kind of airframe- one that focuses on multi role and slower and another one being Air Superiority and Air control.

What's the usage of deeper bays? Actually the combat capability of the Fighter could increase if it is able to accomodate LRASM size payload internally. Because the LRASM size platform is not only merely a Anti-Ship or Land-Attack Missile. In the similar dimensions we could make various Air Launched Effectors.
1. Boeing CHAMP esque Weapon that can be released and snoops ahead disabling enemy systems.
2. A Electronic Warfare Drone that's akin to a Drone-fied version of Raytheon F-18 Growler EW Pod.
3. A DARPA Long Shot drone that can be launched from Internal Bay and travel to some 100s of Km and then Open its own IWB and launch 1 or 2 AAMs. A LRASM or Tomahawk has 500kg warhead and a Meteor weights in only some 200kg. Obviously the challenge is not in Weight but in having long enough Weapon Bays to fit in such system.
4. A Prober/Forward Observer kind of System that can be launched and uses its Active/Passive Radar or IRST System to send data back.
5. A Air launched Decoy

Such above kind of Air Launched Effectors for a NGAD can make it supremely capable improving its combat capability so much. The most obvious kind is DARPA Longshot that can fit in internally. A LRASM has been touted as having 500km range and that too somewhat in medium to low altitudes but it would have increased range since Air Combat happens in high altitude almost giving it a 700-1000km range.

But even without such powerful engines we could make a heavy fighter at 35-Tons using AL-31F or aka 75-kN engines and eventually 100-kN. Obviously it would be slow as *censored* like F-35 but we can't have all. If AHCA has to be, it should be akin to like this below.
View attachment 39308

The high dry thrust engine is the key,we cannot make an mki replacement with the envisioned engine for amca.

 

[mamiam23]

The high dry thrust engine is the key,we cannot make an mki replacement with the envisioned engine for amca.

Yes you could make a slow F-35 esque Multi-Role at 25-27 Tons with 2x50-kN(Dry)&80-kN(Wet) or you could make a F-22 equivalent at 25-27 Tons with 2x75-kN(Dry) &140-kN (Wet). A F-22 Raptor with full Stealth Load has a Takeoff weight of 64,000lbs and we have a thrust of 52,000lbf which gives a TWR of 0.8. Now to have similar performance at some 25-27 MTOW plane, lets assume 27-Tons is AMCA MTOW, which means a empty weight of 12.5-Tons and a 6.5-Ton of fuel and a 2-Ton payload internally totalling 20-Ton Stealth Takeoff weight, with a ratio of 0.8, we need to have 72kN Dry thrust.

The Key is to make the engine same size and weight as F-414, obviously we could term the AL-31F as having similar thrust but you can't fit such in AMCA and call it a day. Keeping aside factors such as reliability, the main FEATURE is Higher Turbine Inlet Temperature to extract more "Energy" from the fuel.

A AMCA at 27-Tons with 75kN engine is equivalent to a 37-Ton F-22 with 120kN engine. Whereas a AMCA at 27-Tons with 50-kN engines are just a higher thrust version of F-35. Obviously the USAF smoked crack while designing specs of F-35 but keeping aside such matter, we could design a AHCA at 35-Tons with above DIAGRAM depicting two large bays in terms of diameter and a central bay to accomodate longer but slimmer missiles like AIM-174B.

IAF/DRDO/ADA/MoD could have envisaged our 5th-Gen plane from get go as a Heavy fighter and leveraged the AL-31F and its ecosystem just like Chinese did with J-20 but could have envisaged it more as a Multi Role fighter at 35-Tons. With such, we could have got above configuration and to reach the Speed requirements our GOAL would have increased from 75-kN to 100-kN. Obviously, since the AL-31F is different class in terms of weight and size, whatever methodologies used to devise a high performance engine in F-414 class could very well translate to a AL-31F class resulting in 100-kN engine.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Unless one country has a very high Dry Thrust Engine like F-135 with a minimum of 120kN and put it in a Super Heavy Combat Aircraft at MTOW of 50-60 Tons along with High Aerodynamic and Efficient planform like Tailless Delta, they would struggle with accommodating with two different kinds of loads.

There are fundamental difference in how we conduct Air to Air Warfare and Air to Ground/Sea Warfare. In the former we need more bigger bays in terms of length like F-22 where as in the latter we need more deeper bays. Obviously in the latter configuration we could use some jugaad like sidekick in F-35 to cram missiles but the platform would be bulky and inefficient aerodynamically. We would like sleek and slick and the air to air missiles enable that not needing excessive diameter bays. Fundamentally both need different kind of airframe- one that focuses on multi role and slower and another one being Air Superiority and Air control.

What's the usage of deeper bays? Actually the combat capability of the Fighter could increase if it is able to accomodate LRASM size payload internally. Because the LRASM size platform is not only merely a Anti-Ship or Land-Attack Missile. In the similar dimensions we could make various Air Launched Effectors.
1. Boeing CHAMP esque Weapon that can be released and snoops ahead disabling enemy systems.
2. A Electronic Warfare Drone that's akin to a Drone-fied version of Raytheon F-18 Growler EW Pod.
3. A DARPA Long Shot drone that can be launched from Internal Bay and travel to some 100s of Km and then Open its own IWB and launch 1 or 2 AAMs. A LRASM or Tomahawk has 500kg warhead and a Meteor weights in only some 200kg. Obviously the challenge is not in Weight but in having long enough Weapon Bays to fit in such system.
4. A Prober/Forward Observer kind of System that can be launched and uses its Active/Passive Radar or IRST System to send data back.
5. A Air launched Decoy

Such above kind of Air Launched Effectors for a NGAD can make it supremely capable improving its combat capability so much. The most obvious kind is DARPA Longshot that can fit in internally. A LRASM has been touted as having 500km range and that too somewhat in medium to low altitudes but it would have increased range since Air Combat happens in high altitude almost giving it a 700-1000km range.

But even without such powerful engines we could make a heavy fighter at 35-Tons using AL-31F or aka 75-kN engines and eventually 100-kN. Obviously it would be slow as *censored* like F-35 but we can't have all. If AHCA has to be, it should be akin to like this below.
View attachment 39308

1st on the UCAVs:
> Eventually there will definitely be UCAVs for all current manned jet roles - EW, Tanker, AWACS, decoy, etc.
> But IMO the Wingman fghter UCAVs need to have same profile w.r.t. speed, range as their manned master-jet, if they really wan't to be "Wingman". They don't wan't to be left behind when speed is required. They don't wan't to be running back for refuelling sooner. They'll also need afterburner engines to dogfight.
> The entire world is dreaming about UCAVs but even USA is yet to demonstrate UCAV formation flying w/o collison requiring proximity sensing. And our UCAV R&D is far behind.
> There are many private firms in West advertising their ideas to win tenders. Not all are feseabile, some could be misleaading too.
> AHCA can have UCAV version too.

Now for the manned AHCA jet:
> Different members can imagine it in different ways but i imagine it to be Naval + Fighter-bomber + Supercruising & then its AF version. It would be like stealthy Su-33. and ofcourse a good engine is required, at least 180KN wet thrust.
> The cross section drawing which you have shown - The side bays look good but the central bay needs to have both AAMs & AGMs. It will take time for me to draw a scaled diagram in MS Paint. But for now take example of F-22 fuselage cross sections as refernce & draw your idea:

IDK if the artist has drawn this precisely but if we superimpose the crosssections we get interesting image, which can help better in imagining:

 

[sahil singh]

IMO we should work on a stealth bomber based on Ghatak Ucav design.

 

[Hydra]

Yes you could make a slow F-35 esque Multi-Role at 25-27 Tons with 2x50-kN(Dry)&80-kN(Wet) or you could make a F-22 equivalent at 25-27 Tons with 2x75-kN(Dry) &140-kN (Wet). A F-22 Raptor with full Stealth Load has a Takeoff weight of 64,000lbs and we have a thrust of 52,000lbf which gives a TWR of 0.8. Now to have similar performance at some 25-27 MTOW plane, lets assume 27-Tons is AMCA MTOW, which means a empty weight of 12.5-Tons and a 6.5-Ton of fuel and a 2-Ton payload internally totalling 20-Ton Stealth Takeoff weight, with a ratio of 0.8, we need to have 72kN Dry thrust.

The Key is to make the engine same size and weight as F-414, obviously we could term the AL-31F as having similar thrust but you can't fit such in AMCA and call it a day. Keeping aside factors such as reliability, the main FEATURE is Higher Turbine Inlet Temperature to extract more "Energy" from the fuel.

A AMCA at 27-Tons with 75kN engine is equivalent to a 37-Ton F-22 with 120kN engine. Whereas a AMCA at 27-Tons with 50-kN engines are just a higher thrust version of F-35. Obviously the USAF smoked crack while designing specs of F-35 but keeping aside such matter, we could design a AHCA at 35-Tons with above DIAGRAM depicting two large bays in terms of diameter and a central bay to accomodate longer but slimmer missiles like AIM-174B.

IAF/DRDO/ADA/MoD could have envisaged our 5th-Gen plane from get go as a Heavy fighter and leveraged the AL-31F and its ecosystem just like Chinese did with J-20 but could have envisaged it more as a Multi Role fighter at 35-Tons. With such, we could have got above configuration and to reach the Speed requirements our GOAL would have increased from 75-kN to 100-kN. Obviously, since the AL-31F is different class in terms of weight and size, whatever methodologies used to devise a high performance engine in F-414 class could very well translate to a AL-31F class resulting in 100-kN engine.

I used to tell,still saying that AMCA is just a light stealth fighter, even soko counter Parr too. As of now Turkish 5th gen can be categorized as medium stealth fighter.

Hope we will collaborate to design a f110 GE equivalent with sufficient electrical out for AMCA mk2 ( of course with different airframe).

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

@sahil singh You have incorrectly used the QUOTING function. Your reply about bomber based on Ghatak should be out of quote box. While clicking the up arrow it leads to random reply bcoz i never said that, bcoz i'm not clear yet if we need a dedicated bomber, if yes then what type.
This thread is about a multi-role Fighter-Bomber.
To discuss dedicated bomber we need separate thread.

 

[sahil singh]

@sahil singh You have incorrectly used the QUOTING function. Your reply about bomber based on Ghatak should be out of quote box. While clicking the up arrow it leads to random reply bcoz i never said that, bcoz i'm not clear yet if we need a dedicated bomber, if yes then what type.
This thread is about a multi-role Fighter-Bomber.
To discuss dedicated bomber we need separate thread.

Sorry brother

@sahil singh You have incorrectly used the QUOTING function. Your reply about bomber based on Ghatak should be out of quote box. While clicking the up arrow it leads to random reply bcoz i never said that, bcoz i'm not clear yet if we need a dedicated bomber, if yes then what type.
This thread is about a multi-role Fighter-Bomber.
To discuss dedicated bomber we need separate thread.

Sorry brother I wanted to reply but I quoted it by mistake.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Yes you could make a slow F-35 esque Multi-Role at 25-27 Tons with 2x50-kN(Dry)&80-kN(Wet) or you could make a F-22 equivalent at 25-27 Tons with 2x75-kN(Dry) &140-kN (Wet). A F-22 Raptor with full Stealth Load has a Takeoff weight of 64,000lbs and we have a thrust of 52,000lbf which gives a TWR of 0.8. Now to have similar performance at some 25-27 MTOW plane, lets assume 27-Tons is AMCA MTOW, which means a empty weight of 12.5-Tons and a 6.5-Ton of fuel and a 2-Ton payload internally totalling 20-Ton Stealth Takeoff weight, with a ratio of 0.8, we need to have 72kN Dry thrust.

The Key is to make the engine same size and weight as F-414, obviously we could term the AL-31F as having similar thrust but you can't fit such in AMCA and call it a day. Keeping aside factors such as reliability, the main FEATURE is Higher Turbine Inlet Temperature to extract more "Energy" from the fuel.

A AMCA at 27-Tons with 75kN engine is equivalent to a 37-Ton F-22 with 120kN engine. Whereas a AMCA at 27-Tons with 50-kN engines are just a higher thrust version of F-35. Obviously the USAF smoked crack while designing specs of F-35 but keeping aside such matter, we could design a AHCA at 35-Tons with above DIAGRAM depicting two large bays in terms of diameter and a central bay to accomodate longer but slimmer missiles like AIM-174B.

IAF/DRDO/ADA/MoD could have envisaged our 5th-Gen plane from get go as a Heavy fighter and leveraged the AL-31F and its ecosystem just like Chinese did with J-20 but could have envisaged it more as a Multi Role fighter at 35-Tons. With such, we could have got above configuration and to reach the Speed requirements our GOAL would have increased from 75-kN to 100-kN. Obviously, since the AL-31F is different class in terms of weight and size, whatever methodologies used to devise a high performance engine in F-414 class could very well translate to a AL-31F class resulting in 100-kN engine.

Theoretically lots of permutations can be made - slow subsonic like F-35 & F-18SH, supercruising like F-22, high supersonic which NGAD & F/A-XX will try at least. I personally will prefer something like modified Naval F-22 w.r.t. speed.

On AHCA thread, obviously i won't praise AMCA or other medium jet otherwise heavy concept won't make sense. So considering F-22 as reference, i already showed calculation about ideal/minimum wet TWR or T/STOW = 2x(156-165 KN) /9.8 /29 tons = 1.1 to 1.16 & adding 2 AGMs increases STOW to be 31-32 tons & wet thrust required per engine of 180KN+, which is equal to (2x180)/123=2.92 or 3 AL-31FP engines of Su-30MKI; or (2x180)/142=2.53 AL-41F1 engines of Su-35/57. The world leaders in engine tech cannot limit all that power to size of F414 engine.

The JV can be a great opportunity only if we develop 2 engines - 1 regular turbofan for medium jets & 1 VCE for next gen heavy class jet bcoz EU is also developing it.
Among IWB jets, F-22 has highest capacity of 8 AAMs of around 1.1 tons & total STOW or stealthy take-off weight (not MTOW) of around 29 tons.
Su-57 & J-20 stealthy STOW are identical around 29-30 tons.
In my concept if i add more internal AAMs or remove 2 BVR-AAMs & add 2 custom design AShM, ARM like in class of following weapons -
- AGM-158 JASSM (2x1 ton) or LRASM (2x1.2 tons),
- or 4 NSM/JSM (4x416 Kg)
- or 4 AGM-154 JSOW (4x500 Kg)
- or 4 AGM-88G AARGM-ER (4x360 Kg)
- or customized Rudram (2/4)
then the STOW adds 2 more tons & reaches 31-32 tons.
View attachment 36669

F-22's wet T/STOW = 2x(156-165 KN) /9.8 /29 tons = 1.1 to 1.16
Su-57's wet T/STOW = 2x(142.2 KN) /9.8 /29.27 tons = 1
J-20's wet T/STOW with claimed thrust of WS-15 = 2x(171-191 KN) /9.8 /30.21 tons = 1.15 to 1.3

So we see that different makers/countries have different opinion on sufficient TWR.
Let's consider minimum wet T/STOW = 1.15.
To maintain that TWR, thrust/engine required= (31-32 tons x 1.15 x 9.8)/2 = 175 - 180 KN wet, what JV should also target.
Meanwhile the R&D & prototyping can continue using existing engines like AL-41 or AL-31.

The AIM-174B AAM is not slim but huge AAM.

A Russian enthusiast "Paralay" has imagined a stealth concept jet with this big AAM:

I appreciate his effort but some flaws can be noticed clearly like space requirement & positioning, so i think it'll be longer than 72 ft.
Take it with a pinch of salt, pepper, turmeric, coriander, chilli power, etc.

 

[mamiam23]

The GREEN are side weapon bays and since i took too much liberty into putting two of them. Lets limit IR SRAAM to two. In Left and Right bays we have either one LARGE Air Launched EFFECTOR as I said previously OR 3 MRAAMs. In Central Bay obviously since we are not limited by the Landing Gear Bays, we can fit in LRAAMs. Note that this can be realistically achieved in 35-37 Tons with 75-kN(Slow) and 100-kN(Fast).

F-22 like airframe has to be flattened somewhat and its fuselage width has to be increased slightly.

Some of my crudely made concepts for a Tailed Heavy Fighter Concept-
1. Not so stealthy rear

2. Stealthy rear and folding tail.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

View attachment 39357

The GREEN are side weapon bays and since i took too much liberty into putting two of them. Lets limit IR SRAAM to two. In Left and Right bays we have either one LARGE Air Launched EFFECTOR as I said previously OR 3 MRAAMs. In Central Bay obviously since we are not limited by the Landing Gear Bays, we can fit in LRAAMs. Note that this can be realistically achieved in 35-37 Tons with 75-kN(Slow) and 100-kN(Fast).

F-22 like airframe has to be flattened somewhat and its fuselage width has to be increased slightly.

Some of my crudely made concepts for a Tailed Heavy Fighter Concept-
1. Not so stealthy rear
View attachment 39358

2. Stealthy rear and folding tail.

View attachment 39360

Here is the F-22's mid fuselage approximate cross section, i cleaned the diagonal lines. Now you & others can use it as a base reference, alter it & draw your ideas neatly. Draw on 1 side & copy-paste mirror it on other side.

Although i'm skeptical about the concept of effectors bcoz they are like subsonic cruise missiles which can be easiy shot down, but anyways, what you're saying is something like this:

Now it is your homework to alter it, draw neatly as per dimensions of fuselage, weapons, effectors, etc, otherwise it will be difficult to gauge the feasibility of design.

The GCAP design is more for the AF, but we need something for the Indian Navy 1st which can then be easily modified for IAF.

 

[Rajput Lion]

In the recent slides presented by GTRE, they have shown plans for a future engine with 125-145KN power for a heavy-weight jet. So maybe, we do have plans to make our future AHCA post AMCA. Fingers crossed.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

In the recent slides presented by GTRE, they have shown plans for a future engine with 125-145KN power for a heavy-weight jet. So maybe, we do have plans to make our future AHCA post AMCA. Fingers crossed.

That's not enough as per some calculations i already shared based on F-22 as example. Although there is no ISO standard for aspects of jet fighter, fuselage & wing shape, how much % by weight/volume the components, fuel, weapons should occupy, BUT if the next gen jets want to increase the IW capacity beyong F-22's along with range, endurance, more fuel & also maintain some agility to counter 4.5gen & 5gen jets then the TWR should be maintained. Hence USA is going for 200+KN class wet thrust XA-100/1/2/3 engines.
When we're lagging & it'll take 10-15yrs then we should proactively aim more than 125-145KN. The F-35 has also shown that its 1 engine is not sufficient so it is also going under ECU (Engine Core Upgrade) including more thrust, cooling & electricity for stronger EW & also probably for DEW. So it'll enable us also to make 1-engine NG jets for long time into future, perhaps not requiring ECU.