Artist Kuntal Biswas made CAD with dual-rack launcher giving 14 AAMs capability.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tejas Mk2 (Medium Weight Fighter) - News and discussions
- Thread starter Schwifty
- Start date
If you stack missiles like this , the damn plane will shine like the Christmas tree on enemy radars.
There is a simple mechanism of retractable probe in Jaguar. Why can't we copy it? Give an assignment to IIT to work on same. It can be integrated in completion of technology development.
I'm just doing time pass. You should tell that to artist Kuntal Biswas, to the Sukhoi guys, to the Dassault guys & to USA with F-15EX, etc who talk about missile trucks.
passively firing AAMs via datalink.
The Engine problem
These MK2 CGIs are beautiful, but where is the prototype of this plane? The HAL, ADA playing ping pong for design certification, and MOD with their finance approval, The whole IAF thing is soup. Defense imports for IAF are making a big hole in India's taxpayer pocket. Defense imports don't contribute a single penny to India's GDP. India's defense planners are just sleeping without any ideas about how to resolve the future issues. We need immediate action on the engine plan for AMCA and domestic S400. If we need to talk with France, we should go for it and finish the deal.Artist Kuntal Biswas made CAD with dual-rack launcher giving 14 AAMs capability.
View attachment 39052
That's why we're drinking soup at home & playing ping-pong here with ideas.
Till GoI will announce that AMCA/TEDBF/MWF will have European engine instead of F414, people will face BP (Blood Pressure) problems
, headache
, etc.
Most people do not know that hanging missiles and bombs on an aircraft is one thing and actually flying with them is another. The G-Limits for every fighter aircraft are for a specific weight and load out. The max G-limits are for A2A config vd 50% internal fuel and 4/6 missiles. Once you exceed the config, the load limits come down and the performance of the aircraft suffers drastically. Did anyone ever think of the rise in drag index with such heavy load out.
You're right. Most people don't understand. Someone on another forum said that artist Kuntal Biswas has been awarded contract by DoD to make these renders & he sticks to official specs as revealed gradually. The original front-view pic is from ADA slide (page 41) which shows the weight & G limit of all pylons. It seems it was shared here earlier, it bears this site's watermark on ADA slide
Now you tell us where EXACTLY you see a problem. Is ADA doing mistake? In which config the drag index increases a lot? The creators made some more permutations:
Any pylon rated for 1800kgs does not mean that it can withstand 9G at that rated weight. Pls go thru my post again. The G-Limits are for a particular weight of the aircraft and not for pylons. You can load pylons the way you want as long as you maintain the overall weight which confirms to 9G limit. For any airframe to be certified for any G-Limit, it must show that it will not break apart even with 50 % additional weight. So for a 9G limit, the airframe must show ruggedness and strength to withstand 13.5G without deforming or breaking.
A publicly disclosed info is supposed to be practical. I guess it means both things like if you put 1800Kg at center pylon then then plane can pull 6G, if 520Kg on another pylon then 9G, if 800Kg on another pyon then 4G.
We can't put 1800Kg on wing tip, right?
Common people who watch documentaries & genuine videos know that wing twisting test takes place & pilots in tight turns pull 8-9G. So the airframe should withstand atleast 50% more. And we can notice a pattern in specs of all fighter jets that MTOW is roughly around double of empty weight.
But all these things are not the point here, but if you think that something is wrong in any of the config. We can see similar mixed load & missile truck config for many jets, actual flying pics & videos, even if the drag increases, ofcourse it wil be more compared to clean config. When we ride car or bike there is air resistance & ground friction
So all vehicles on land, sea, air are designed after calculating, eperimenting all types of resistance forces, gross power, net power.
The slide is of ADA so let us know if you feel that they are doing something wrong in any config. There is no problem in having different opinion with IAF, ADA, DRDO, etc bcoz these are huge institutions & their 1000s of employees also have differences in opinion.
We are in a quicksand bcoz we loved importing, didn't do timely R&D so now we have to tolerate these light & medium 4gen jets when world is racing for 6gen. Some people just echo GoI/MoD/DoD, keep complaining "we can't do this/that", discourage others also.
Since long i have emphasized that 4gen can be MLUed till a limit. A gen leap is said to occur when airframe cannot bear more MLU, the newer tech require more space or re-positioning/replacement of certain components. And missiles will also evolve smartly with multi-spectral seekers.
So all-aspect stealth becomes important otherwise a jet simply becomes a mosquito
waiting to be shot down. That's the fate of any older gen in front of newer gen. And this is why i don't waste my time going to LCA thread in any forum. I don't even talk about Gripen or even Rafale, EF-2000 bcoz these jets have seen sufficient service & their creators are skipping 5gen with GCAP & FCAS. Once they come in a decade then future versions of Eurocanards will only do brooming & mopping & will be exported to R&D-less countries.
So MWF also needs to evolve. The entire project management needs to evolve & fast track. If team size is short, hire more. If facilities are short, expand. It is now or never.
Only changing cockpit & some internal components is not enough, a geometrical treatment is required. The 1st few battles will be fought in stealth mode, then beast mode will come. I even approximately calculated & made a table of light/medium/heavy class stealth jets where light jet should carry 4 AAMs internally, but with same TWR a heavy jet can have 8-10 AAMs.
In pure AA mode, may be 3 BVR-AAMs can fit in its center IWB.
Also, this way we won't need to import Su-75 or any similar jet from anywhere.
Since long i have emphasized that 4gen can be MLUed till a limit. A gen leap is said to occur when airframe cannot bear more MLU, the newer tech require more space or re-positioning/replacement of certain components. And missiles will also evolve smartly with multi-spectral seekers.
So all-aspect stealth becomes important otherwise a jet simply becomes a mosquito
waiting to be shot down. That's the fate of any older gen in front of newer gen. And this is why i don't waste my time going to LCA thread in any forum. I don't even talk about Gripen or even Rafale, EF-2000 bcoz these jets have seen sufficient service & their creators are skipping 5gen with GCAP & FCAS. Once they come in a decade then future versions of Eurocanards will only do brooming & mopping & will be exported to R&D-less countries.So MWF also needs to evolve. The entire project management needs to evolve & fast track. If team size is short, hire more. If facilities are short, expand. It is now or never.
Only changing cockpit & some internal components is not enough, a geometrical treatment is required. The 1st few battles will be fought in stealth mode, then beast mode will come. I even approximately calculated & made a table of light/medium/heavy class stealth jets where light jet should carry 4 AAMs internally, but with same TWR a heavy jet can have 8-10 AAMs.
In pure AA mode, may be 3 BVR-AAMs can fit in its center IWB.
Also, this way we won't need to import Su-75 or any similar jet from anywhere.
It can be simplified in mathematical term as Maximum weight handling limit at 1 G/ G load. For example, it can sustain 5000 k.g when it is not flying, it can handle 1000 kg at 5 G turn. G means multiplication in weight. what is 1000 k.g at 1 G will be 5000 k.g at 5 G and 9000 k.g at 9 G. If you want to apply, say 200 K.G at wing tip and you want to do 5 G with this load, you should make it capable of handling 1000 k.g in steal condition. Sir Am I right?
No, you need to make it capable of withstanding 1500 kgs. That is 150% more than the certified load limit.
On a side note, USAF officials have talked about the use of 'digital twin' tech to speed up dev cycles of their next-gen fighters (specifically NGAD). Considering the IN already uses VR tech for the detail design of warships, how feasible is it for ADA/IAF to adopt it for Mk2 and AMCA? Would it have a measurable impact in terms of reducing flight testing/IOC/FOC timeframes?
IN always got least amount of budget allocation. so they tried to make maximum out of it and decided to go for its own designs. IN created its own design house way back in 70s itself and now we are designing even nuke Subs. IA and IAF till date do not have an equivalent. Their approach to any Indian product is that of a critic. They will only show what the design lacks but will never join the program or take responsibility. LCA design was frozen in its present form by an IAF design team in 1983 when HAL was still under IAF and ADA had not been created. Just like HF-24, IAF abondoned LCA also and it was a baby without any parent.
I do not post those parts ie tenders related to this, but digital twin based process is in for both mk2 amca and likely will be for tedbf. One particular tender was recent like last month but i deleted the doc few days ago which had the details. These days the lab go thru entire process ie also making respective simulators as part of design 7 dev process.
Do the labs also plan the whole life cycle of platform in the digital twin or just simulators for training? Because the former is way more stuff planned into the design before even first flight even occurred, like seeing maintainability for ground crew, ease of manufacturing etc.
old LM videos showing the digital twin concept
I may be wrong, but I feel we might simulate few conditions for a design do WT tests and refine etc and fly real prototype I still have doubts we have the full digital twin, which can simulate the whole lot parameters for the lifecycle of a system for multiple designs and select the most optimum solution like US has shown with Nvidia Omniverse. Frankly it is too much compute resource to simulate all this without dedicated supercomputers for this.
They can do a lot more with a digital twin than with CAD/CAM. Around the time NGAD made its first flight, USAF officials boasted they could develop an all-new design within a year. But they later realized it wasn't going to be that easy after all. Look how quickly the narrative changed.
Exclusive: The Air Force’s Secret New Fighter Jet Uses F1-Style Engineering
The mysterious sixth-generation plane came to life in just one year. This breakthrough tech helps explain how.
versus
Air Force Boss Gives Reality Check On "Over-Hyped" Digital Engineering Revolution
Air Force officials have trumpeted digital engineering as hugely transformative for years, but what it can and can't do is now setting in.
www.twz.com
I'm not familiar to what extent DRDO/ADA have been adopting digital engineering tech. But if it could shrink the dev cycle for AMCA to under 8 years (2035) from first flight (assuming 2027) to induction, it'd be worth every penny invested imo.