Ah you already posted it. Here is the same pic with the caption as was in the document.
Agreed. It seems were are at final stages of refining the aerodynamics of the Astra Mk2. We should have ground fire tests soon enough followed by carriage and flight test.
I do hope the fins are foldable. That would be very beneficial as it saves space incase of internal carriage of the missile by AMCA.
there is no need for these fins to be folded as they have very short chord and can be very easily staggard inside the weapons bays.
Won't those fins, despite their short size, cause problems during launching ? Can these problems be worked out by wind tunnel testing and simulations ? The American F-22 has a separate bay for their non-folding Sidewinders but we don't have such provisions in the AMCA.
Do you know the full weapon layout of AMCA? If you have any information, please share.
Weapon load of an aircraft depends on the mission. It's not finalised yet, as far as I know. Multiple versions are floating around on the internet. This is what I can say with certainty, there will be one central weapon bay and no side bays. The central bay will have 4-6 hardpoints(they keep varying in different depictions). Number of ordinance carried increases if the ordinance is of smaller diameter(like missiles) and decreases if it larger in dia(like gravity bombs). As for racks, there is a possibility of having multiple ordinance carried by a single rack. Release mechanism is going to be gravity driven most possibly, although an assisted release will reduce signature during firing.
External payload will be carried by 7-8 hardpoints. One of which(on the centre fuselage) will be occupied by a Litening Targeting Pod. There will be two external wetpoints at a minimum for carrying additional fuel. No wing tip mounts. single/dual racks on the other points.
But then all this is based out of pics from documents and so on. Our consistency in fighter design is nothing to write home about. So it would be safe to take all that I just wrote with a huge lump of salt.
These missiles are fired thru ejector systems as they need to be lowered into the airstream and than punched out. They are not rail fired. If you punch them out from within the bay, the airflow below the bay will cause it to topple and hit the aircraft body.
I do remember reading something about a hydraulic ejection system for the AMCA which mentioned the same procedure of launch that you mentioned. They stressed the importance of gently letting the missile airframe out of the bay and into the airstream, I wondered why. Thank you for the explanation, sir.
when the bay doors open, the airflow in the front part of the bay rises into the bay while at the rear it is downwards and exiting. In such a situation if you release the missile, it will pitch up and tumble within the bay before falling down due to gravity. It is to ensure a stable flight after launch that it is first lowered into the airstream and than punched out. This way it is out of the disturbed airflow of the weapons bay.
What if I tell you that is Akash NG
From what I know Astra Mk2 and Akash NG will have the same airframe and same propulsion system.
Well no way to prove , best wait and see.
It is Astra Mk2. The size of the fins and its comparison with the body clearly makes it to be one.
Its not possible to have that. Akash NG will be multiple time heavier. It just has a similar fin arrangement.
It is possible that image is actually Akash NG. Especially if its range is 50Km.
If the Akash NG is a bigger missile than Astra Mk2, then it will have a much greater range than even Barak 8, which doesn't make sense for us at this time. But for Astra Mk2, a range of 50Km seem about right.
Personally I think they just took the Astra Mk2, put it in a ground launcher and called it Akash NG.
I'm guessing F-16 ?? The wing profiles and the intake profile look very similar to a F-16. By the looks of it there seems to be a provision for the model to do a nose up-nose down maneuver. Also the model is placed to take a side profile wind flow pattern measurements, as in the wind tunnel will throw air at it not from the forward direction but from the sides.
Where did you get it ? Is the source Indian ? That would be interesting.
Sir, does a missile launched at altitude (7km / 8km ) and possessing 50 km range , get the same range when launched from ground? Obviously there are trajectory difference, but still the ground launched missile need to negotiate dense atmosphere with higher drag? Is it just a plug and play where a BVR missile can be adopted to a SAM system w/o mdification to propulsion or airframe?
i feel it is too much of an elevation it has to over come before chasing down an aircraft my take 10-20 km will be reduced depending upon booster phase