We need to go by our own timeframe, not others'.
WHO/WHAT decides the timeframe? >>>>. Natural evolution with time. So there is noting like going by others' timeframe. 1 country invents something & becomes leader in it & others try to follow & close the gap a.s.a.p. SIMPLE.
History is evident that most powerful leader tries to become invader, dictator, destroyer. Our scams & failed results have proven that our timeframe is lazy, lousy & also loosing if war happens suddenly & this same concern is shared by Ex-officials from armed forces on YouTube.
For example, the French completely skipped a stealth jet and Dassault claims the Rafale F5 is good enough until 2050, with a modernized Rafale taking over beyond that, which means they believe SCAF is unnecessary.
And now the USAF is doing a rethink on NGAD because they believe unmanned CCAs will surpass it by 2040.
The current NGAD may get canceled. They are probably planning to make a smaller jet than earlier. If they turn it into a drone, then they can carry more ammo.
> If there is news of cancellation of FCAS, please do share. Like we all know, in every era the latest gen is supplemented by previous gen, there is an overlap. So Rafale F5 will supplement FCAS.
>
Misinformation, confusion, diversion are part of military tactics & USA is good at it. USA is still testing its UCAVs & yet to demonstrate group flight, coordination otherwise they will accidentally ram into eachother.
Yes, 1 day USAF will be UCAV-AF but that transition will take 1 gen of time for AI & ML to mature fully but in full safe control of humans. USAF wants to field 6gen soon which will be MUMT (Manned UnManned Teaming) with CCA+PCA=NGAD. They can't abruplty fire their pilots or stop recruiting or it'll impact them economically, socially, politically.
> A giant AF cannot have only 1 big jet even after all 4.5gen jets retire. If at all they are planning a smaller jet then it could be a follow-on to F-35, a supplementary jet & may be the next export product. They may not export the bigger NGAD.
Which means our AMCA will be a better option than Rafale + modernized Rafale or F-22 + F-35 combo due to its relatively newer design.
> PLEASE LET'S DISCUSS AMCA IN ITS OWN THREAD. THIS THREAD WILL FOCUS ON SURPASSING AMCA IN CAPACITY.
> In general, every 5/5.5gen is supposed to defeat every 4.5gen jet most of the times. It is supposd to have 50-50 chance with any other 5gen jet including F-22, F-35, Su-57, J-20, J-31/35.
> But USA, Russia, China have operated 1 heavy & 1 medium category jet - F-15+F-16, Su-27/3X+MiG-29, F-22+F-35, Su-57+Su-75(very late unfortunately), J-20+J-31/35. We also operated MKI+MiG-29+others. Now we are going to make AMCA but leaving a hole in the heavy category, glorifying MKI & overconfidently depending on it & AMCA.
> You are simply not keeping patience to understand the
limitations of smaller airframe & engines & why heavy jets with heavy engines have been created in the 1st place. Not just F-22, Su-57, J-20 but also previous gen Su-27/3X, F-15.
> AMCA airframe & its F414 engines are
not sufficient - fuel, payload, electricity. Hence AHCA is the answer
> Let me repeat -
We are making LCA, MWF, AMCA only bcoz we can't arrange a better engine by self/JV/import. If our GTRE or private sector could make engine like F119, F110, etc then we would also have a strong IAF with those big jets + global export market.
With drones taking over the regular AS mission, the IAF is going to need a true next gen capability after AMCA, not just an NGAD equivalent. And remember, we are talking 2055, so that's gonna have to be us skipping a generation.
> 1st let the drones/UCAVs be fielded & demonstrate practical success together in group, long time remaining for that.
> BUT you are the one who is thinking 2055+, i'm talking 2040s. You are leaving everything on AMCA for next 30-40yrs.
> You are talking about AFTER AMCA, i'm talking about parallel to AMCA with it being LSP.
> You spoke about 7gen, SCRamjet, that's NEXT TO NEXT GEN, while this thread's title/idea has 5.5/6gen. Anybody can peek way ahead into future & say that eventually we will need 8gen, 9gen, 10gen tech.
If you create a new appropriate thread on your vision, we all will discuss there.
Our plan is the same, we just want a much smaller jet because unlike their large territory which requires range and speed, we need higher endurance and turnaround. You don't get the latter two with a very large jet.
No, in your words, our plan is not same, bcoz your statements are self-contradictory.
Larger territory also needs more fuel & higher endurance also needs more fuel. Our country is also sub-continental. Su-57 & Su-3X have similar internal fuel. Russia has MiG-31 fast interceptor for their continental country.
Smaller jets means less fuel, less range, less endurance unless you can explain exactly the opposite. Using
EFT means precious hard-point lost, bad for economics per sortie.
Also, please let's know your metric of light/medium/heavy jet so that we can understand eachother better.
Brahmos MA is being designed for 300 km range, perhaps 400 km. The MKIs will be able to use the 800+ km Brahmos-A variant in the near future.
Please don't go in circles. I
already answered, again repeating - 4.5gen jets have higher RCS hence they require higher standoff range. Stealthy jet with stealthy weapons, less range required.
It's supposed to be relative to the previous one, not spanning across generations. The budget impact only takes the previous one into account.
A sedan will be costlier than hatchback in same segment with common features. You are deadly against big jets stating costly to maintaiin but supporting Su-30MKI. So that's another contradiction. Then we made mistake getting MKI also.
ADA has officially decided they won't be doing that. They stated that AMCA will be IAF-only. TEDBF will be the interim IN aircraft followed by a 6th gen clean-sheet CATOBAR-capable design. And then Dassault is Dassault, they have the experience to pull off such things, we may not have the capability and we do not want to follow in their footsteps anyway.
Rafale comes with performance trade-offs.
> Team discussions happens in all offices but we don't know who exactly makes the final verdict & based on what. But ADA/NAL has made bad decision bcoz
enemy won't give discount to Navy with less capable SAMs & AAMs. If IN faces battle before they get stealth jet then there will be more losses than IAF.
It is not personal opinion but the physics, chemistry, maths of technology, ask any tech grad student. ADA/NAL made another bad decision by using AL-31 for SU-30MKI & glorifying it but not for AHCA R&D. So the IAF will also suffer in that category.
> If we don't have the capability then we are destined to suffer.
> When we are not tech leader/inventor the we have to
follow footsteps of technology evolution, not of any country.
>
Naval jet will always have little bit trade-offs compared to AF jet, but that doesn't/shouldn't stop R&D. NGAD will progress doesn't mean F/A-XX won't. If Russia, Europe, etc can't field Naval jet corresponding to AF jet w.r.t. prevailing technologies then their Navy will also suffer.
I am talking about you and me, not DRDO.
You claim AHCA will be a massive aircraft, I believe we don't have the answer, and Mig-41 will give us (you and me and other readers on this forum) a clue about the size required for stratospheric performance. And my claim is we will need a smaller aircraft than the Mig-41.
Remember, the timeframe is 2055. NGAD, GCAP timeframe is 2030-35 and SCAF timeframe is 2040-45, ours is almos 30 years away. We are most definitely not gonna go for an equivalent.
Mig-41 will provide us the template. We can't guess it yet. Mig-31's MTOW is 46T.
> You are talking like Russian citizen or close ally.
You wan't to wait for MiG-41 & learn from it but not NGAD, F/A-XX, FCAS, GCAP.
>
You wan't ADA/NAL/HA/DRDO to wait for 5/10/15yrs or whenever Russia will disclose, develop & fly the MiG-41 & be dependent on them. But again a contradiction as you said we should foucs on our timeline.
IDK if MiG-41 will be naval or not bcoz it is a Mig-31 follow-on, a long range fast interceptor, but my idea has to be naval. For a quick preliminary idea, just
imagine a stealthy Naval Flanker with more IWB capacity. MTOW of Su-33 is 33 tons, Su-57 is 35 tons, add 3 more tons for more IWB capacity = 38 tons, same as for MKI.
> Hence I gave indication that my vision is inspired by Su-33 & global tech R&D, meaning F/A-XX actually. I also showed notional diagram of F-22 & Su-57 with more IWBs. So you can get the idea about rough size of AHCA. There is no need to wait for MiG-41. And you only said we should focus on our timeline, so that adds to more contradictions on your part.
> Like i said earlier, you are thinking about MiG-41, Stratospheric flight, 2055+ time, NOT ME. I'm not against your vision but it doesn't match this thread, it needs another thread category. How many times should i repeat? I sincerely request you to open a thread with title something like
"Post AMCA capability 7gen concept - Stratospheric flight, SCRamjet, 2055+ timeline"
We don't need such a jet. We only need at best a 15% bigger jet than AMCA, an AMCA Mk2. It can have an MTOW of 30T.
> Some of us are saying that to hide our incapability to have a better engine.
> That's what many people said since P-51 Mustang days in era of 1/2/3/4gen aircrafts. But makers didn't listen to them.
> By your logic it can also be said that we don't need 7gen stratospheric SCRamjet fighter needing huge fuel & money.
> MTOW 30T is basically trying to match J-35 & F-35. If N-AMCA is designed, it will need bigger wings & stronger LGs, meaning say 2 tons more. Its IWB has to be adjusted to carry custom AShMs, ARMs like West is designing. So its IWB capacty might increase from 1.5 to 2.5 tons. So your 30 tons gets consumed. But the internal fuel remains same & bcoz engines will remain same so the TWR will go down which may impact takeoff, landing, range, endurance.
My idea is little more ambitious by improving all aspects in ratio, that's all. You can disagree, no problem. But IDK
if technology enables us to do something better then why would someone be adamant to oppose it desperately.
Avionics is subjective. LCA has more processing power than the current F-22.
My college senior worked on LCA & he indicated to us that LCA got redundant computers but more or less same as that of similar jet like Mirage-2000. While F-22's computer was equivalent to an average Cray Supercomputer.
A light 4gen jet simply doesn't have the components & hence requirements to have a Supercomputer or more processing power than world's costliest 5gen jet.
But the current AMCA design has 25% more fuel fraction than the F-22. 0.29 vs 0.35, that's quite close to the F-35A. So AMCA will comfortably outrange the F-22. Being smaller and lighter means easier maintenance and faster turnaround time. So it's an F-22++.
> PLEASE LET'S DISCUSS AMCA IN ITS OWN THREAD. THIS THREAD WILL FOCUS ON SURPASSING AMCA IN CAPACITY.
> Why are you mixing fuel fraction, range with H/w, S/w, avionics & going astray? Combination of many things like fuel consumption/SFC, quantity, aerodynamics, altitude, payload decide range, this is again the physics, chemistry, maths of technology, so fraction is merely a design aspect calculation which alone cannot decide range.
> Features & capacity are 2 different things. LCA, Gripen, Hurjet, Yak-130, JL-10, KAI FA-50, etc, all these light fighters also can be equiped with full glass cockpit, HMDS, even virtual cockpit, DAS, EOTS, SPJ if their engine can produce enough electricity but their payload, range, endurance is severly limited.
> BTW there should be only Tata Nano & selected hatch-backs from Maruti-Suzuki, on the roads, less purchase cost, less maintenance, cheap spare parts, easy to park & turn around. All Sedans, Station-wagos, SUVs, etc should be banned. Same thing with phones, TVs, clothes, watches, etc also. Same thing with military also - only light machine guns, light tanks, light artillery, light ships, light submarines, etc.
Fuel is managed depending on the mission. CAP and certain AS missions are conducted at 50-75% fuel, so dog fight happens at 25% or less fuel. Air combat is where TWR is most important. The MKI's packed with fuel for strike missions, which is G limited.
> Airframe design has evolved also, considering, economics, ergonomics, etc. Fossil fuel is precious even for the military. The fuel tanks are spread all over the airframe. Like you guys said they try to put fuel into rudders, CFTs, wherever they can.
> In war time there are many scenarios which can be strategic/pre-planned or dynamic/tactical.
> Often the multiple task forces are loitering to create false attack impressions, diversions & then suddenly 1 of them do the actual attack. So at least 1/3rd fuel is gone there only.
> In another scenario, a jet fighter can be launched from forward airbases near border in offense/retaliation/strike or defence.
> If a 5gen jet has successfully used half of internal weapons AAMs/AGMs it might be ordered to loiter or re-engage somewhere means optimal use of fuel capacity.
> Either ways, to escape from SAMs, AAMs it can be expected to change orientation any time. And with enemy stealth fighter a BVR evasion maneuver or dogfight can begin anytime. So if a 5gen jet fighter cannot take off with full fuel & perform then its design & performance are compromised.
> Today's & few more decades of manned dogfight would be using HMDS & LOAL AAMs which reduces using afterburner maneuver to get into AAM seeker FoV to lock.
> So far we have referred EFTs as DROP tanks, means take off with them but get rid of them after using fuel 1st from them. But 5gen onwards focusses on carrying hat fuel internally. That's what i put it in my 1st intro post but you don't want to understand that.
> Hence taking off with full fuel is important.
> Moreover, fuel is continiously re-distributed evenly across airframe to maintain the CoG (Center of Gravity) so that a 5gen jet fighter can perform any time.
F/A-XX needs more weapons by default, it's not being designed for air superiority. The USN has officially proclaimed that they will surrender the penetration mission to the USAF's NGAD.
> It doesn't mean the world will follow same doctrine & industrial decisions. And you also said we should not follow footsteps of other countries.
> Moreover USA has bases globally to participate in any war anytime. It can be flexible with its doctrine. It can send B-2, B-21 then F/A-XX but when you say it needs more weapons also means it can have versatile roles in stealth & non-stealth configs.
Dunno how that would work. If a laser is capable of destroying AAMs, then AAMs will become useless.
The only way forward to defeat missile is to disrupt or destroy. Disrupting will also suffice.
The DEW R&D started in 1980s i think in era of STAR WARS, not the movie, i mean SDI or Strategic Defence Initiative. It is still progressing. Mobile platforms have been tested on ships, trucks, helicopters, etc. Our DRDO also seems to be working on it.
The F-22's bays are fine for its mission. They had planned a strike version called FB-22 with bigger bays and weapons pods meant to replace the F-15E.
> If any jet was FINE then it wouldn't require MLU or next gen airframe, SIMPLE. In my understanding they didn't make the FB-22 bcoz of following reasons :
> Engine tech was not at VCE stage in 1980s/90s with higher thrust for TWR.
> Hence FB-22 would not be able to dogfight well. Astonishingly F-22 didn't field certain things like HMDS, EOTS, IRST which might come now in its MLU.
> But they can't MLU the IWB, an airframe limit, hence next gen leap with NGAD.
> Private firms can burn cash & push ahead of time but technology fails also if pushed ahead of time. But BUSINESS CONTINUITY is required to employ 1000s, may be 10,000s of people in supply chain. So USA will push only that much as per capability of rest of the world to stay just 1 step/gen ahead.
> In 1980s they planned YF-22, YF-23 with upto 8 internal AAMs when nobody across planet thought or confident about it.
Today they are planning to increase internal payload by compacting other components, but also realizing that to maintain TWR better engines are required, hence R&D on XA-100/101/102/103 which will be bigger & heavier than F119 & F135 engines.
Now they can create FB-22 in form of NGAD, F/A-XX to be multi-role. Below is combo of 2 pics edited to show notional size comparison.
CCAs will carry weapons because deploying weapons is dangerous work. The primary fighter could cost $100-150M+, but a drone could cost $30M, so they will risk the drone for weapons deployment.
IDK how a UCAV Wingman can cost just 20-25% of manned fighter unless you or someone can precisely explain.
> The UCAV also needs radar, sensors, cooling systems, comms, auxilliary equipments. The only thing less will be cockpit with its OBOGS, HVAC, ejection seat for pilot. But some people say it can be optionally manned, then it has to fly with empty cockpit.
> The UCAV will have to do the dashing, intercepting, dogfighting.
> I already said - If manned fighter is devoid of weapons then it becomes a stealth ISTAR jet. Why to develop high thrust VCE with reduced SFC for manned jet? Instead, pass instriction to UCAVs via sat-com or AEW&C jet with high BPR engines with high SFC. The manned jet needs something for self-protection for sneaking enemy.
> Hence, in order for a UCAV to qualify as Wingman, it needs to fly with manned jet when & where required.
All above points means UCAV Wingman should have same foundation aspects of endurance, speed, fuel capacity, avionics of a 5.5/6gen manned jet. And hence it canot cost 20-25% less than the manned jet.
The IAF reference to 6th gen is unmanned drones. Any program activation for MKI replacement is well after AMCA is flying, so it can happen only after AMCA's achieved IOC/FOC. ADA has to work on CCAs in the meantime, apart from IUSAV and FUFA. So don't expect anything concrete to begin until 2035. So whatever technology you are thinking of the IAF will want will have to reflect the times.
> DRDO/ADA/NAL progress on UCAV is very slow. But that's just the unmanned part. The manned part of the puzzle is missing. That's 1 of the points i noticed while making this thread.
> If citizens like me should not expect & express then all forum websites should be banned in our country. Just chill & watch news, pray to god that war should not happen till we field AMCA, FUFA, PAPA, MAMA, etc
in good numbers. The GoI/MoD/DoD, not willing to expand human resource & facilities, will operate in TOTALITARIAN mode rather than DEMOCRATIC, which will be SUICIDAL for entire country.
> Anyways, 6gen will be MUMT, so if people can glorify MKI then they can certainly tolerate a much better stealth jet with AL-31 engines if we can't get F110 or AL-41 w/o ToT.
