Future Combat Air System (FCAS) - France/Germany
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
No, not even close. It's very different from the YF-23. The FCAS's twist is significantly less pronounced.
The YF-23 has a fin with a twist. The FCAS has a tail with a twist.
That's just CGI.
They are both fin-tails. It is certainly not something that will be removed after development as your original post stated.
The angle does not matter, it is not horizontal, therefore it's a fin-tail. And we don't even know whether it will fly yet.
someone has very closely studied my design of MSA and used that stuff with minor changes to this design. But as they do not know the internal layout, they have come out with this configuration. My design has twin fins with a dihedral of 30* which gives it a very strong secondary pitch control surface at high alpha conditions. MSA does have an all moving tail also. I too had initially thought of removing the tail and go with V-tail only. But then I thought of battle damage and failures of control surfaces. I realised that for control reconfiguration, you need a tail plane. MSA with one fin blown off and one side of tail plane broken off can still maintain full control.
The intake design is a modification of mu design and it is badly done. and this shown that they really had no clue of my internal weapons bay layout. Check out the design of MSA and you will find lot of similarities.
Yeah. MSA has mid wing intakes while the FCAS has low wing.
But the FCAS seems to be a far superior design compared to the AMCA.
Hope your design works out, then we can say goodbye to MMRCA and MWF.
Look closely. FCAS also has midwing but a bit higher from mid point. MSA has a wing which has its lower end aligned with the bottom of intake rounded part.
I was actually talking about the position of the intakes.
Anyway, how competitive do you think the AMCA is versus the FCAS in terms of airframe?
@panzerdad
What do you think about the FCAS?
Also do check out Vstol's MSA design in post 111. The model is from 2 years ago and the frontal RCS is at least -36dBsm. Newer designs should have surpassed that. It's single engined, but has an option for twin engine as well. It has 1 main bay and 4 side bays, so 4 AAMs are guaranteed regardless of what is carried in the main bay. The main bay is expected to carry anything short of Brahmos-M.
What do you think about the FCAS?
Also do check out Vstol's MSA design in post 111. The model is from 2 years ago and the frontal RCS is at least -36dBsm. Newer designs should have surpassed that. It's single engined, but has an option for twin engine as well. It has 1 main bay and 4 side bays, so 4 AAMs are guaranteed regardless of what is carried in the main bay. The main bay is expected to carry anything short of Brahmos-M.
AFAIK, AMCA's TWR will be far superior to Typhoon's. With 6.5T of fuel, 1.5T of internal weapons and 115Kn engines, the TWR is expected to be 1.15. Typhoon's TWR with full fuel and 1.5T of weapons is only 1, and it has inferior fuel fraction to boot.
Fuel fraction of AMCA is superior to MKI also. MKI's TWR is only 0.85 in the same configuration and 0.98 with Su-35's engines.
You can actually say that AMCA and PAK FA's TWR are similar with full fuel and 1.5T weapons, although PAK FA's fuel fraction is superior.
But I agree that the AMCA's internal carriage capabilities are sorely lacking. I do hope that they at least manage to put side bays on it.