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

Our industry is not mature enough to have that many engines. Even the Chinese have just 1.

ADVENT started in 2007, but before that was another program that ran internally until 2007. Then came AETD and then AETP. So they keep closing programs after milestones are achieved and starting new ones with new objectives.

Our only future replacement program is MKI and its from 2055 onwards. The IAF is set until the mid to late 2040s with AMCA.

The thing is the IAF realized that they don't need a very big and heavy MKI-style jet for enemies at the border. They need Rafale/AMCA-sized jets because the main criteria is operational availability and turnaround time. So 100 AMCA will be superior to 270 MKIs in the main criterias.
> But that doesn't mean that every maker/country need to have same R&D procedure & timeline. This is an era of urgency for us & right time to absorb so many people into industry. Small countries sprung up after World Wars. This is the time to show industrial maturity.
> As every country as well qualified citizens in different domains, they also can question how their tax is utilized, they also know what they are saying, especially after multiple scams & delays. Not even in USA & Europe the qualified citizens always fully agree with DoD/MoD decisions. We even see protests on news. And that's why this kind of forums exist. There are even private Thinktanks & Study-institutes which qualified citizens join or contribute.
> 30 years is huuuuuuuuuge time for R&D. IAF is just the operator. We'll never get precise insight into who's fault is it, so collectively - GoI, MoD, DoD, ADA, NAL, DRDO, HAL, IAF, etc have made repeated mistakes ignoring R&D bcoz of which LCA, MWF, AMCA, UCAVs, everything has got delayed by decades. Like i said, the engine is deciding factor.
> It is not a thumb rule that big jets will have bigger turnaround time & lesser availability. It is a simple tech evolution & economics that certain size bigger jet per sortie can deliver more firepower with higher loitering time, sometimes in stealth mode. And the electricity required for avionics, equipments, DEW, etc will require much better engine. F-35 got hit by these points & now it is getting MLU/ECU, but we are not at par with them, hence our AMCA, Rafale, MWF will never satisfy the tech points mentioned. Just have a look at the table i created in 1st post. You may create your own table based on your opinion & vison & share with us.

I'm not talking about that being a naval requirement. The IN only needs an AMCA++ in the 2040s. So the industry will take it up after TEDBF.
Let them go ahead with TEDBF & AMCA as LSP, & in parallel work for common fuselage jet for IAF & IN. The easiest thing they can do is inflate AMCA with F110 or AL-41 engine.

But IAF will want its MKI replacement to be ramjet/scramjet capable in 2055.
What I'm saying is the next IAF jet ADA develops to replace MKI will not be NGAD, FCAS, GCAP class, it will be Mig-41++/SR-72++ class.
Any official statement, news, article, video?
Anyway, this is irrelevant to the discussion. My point is we will have ramjet/scramjet on an aircraft by 2030-35 as well, which can translate into a militarized engine for use on AHCA through the 2040s with introduction after 2050.


AMCA's engine will give us all that. AMCA and N-AMCA will require a turbofan, with or without VCE, whatever the forces want. This will serve our needs for 50+ years.

For AHCA, we will need turbofan/turbojet + ramjet/scramjet.

2055, not 2040s.

The next air superiority fighter will require stratospheric performance. You can quite literally say that MRFA and AMCA will deal with 18 km and below and AHCA will deal with 15 km to 80 km. Adding something between the AMCA and AHCA is just a waste of resources, we can instead just make an AMCA Mk2.

So my development goals for
IAF: LCA > AMCA > AHCA (stratospheric class)
IN: N-LCA > TEDBF > TEDBF 2.0 (NGAD, FCAS class)
ADA: LCA > TEDBF > AMCA > TEDBF 2.0 > AHCA

The IAF and IN will ultimately have 3 indigenous types, with only Rafale being common to both.

Of course, I'm not sure yet if LCA Mk1/A will see a direct replacement. It could all get subsumed into AHCA + drones.

Mig-41 should give us a clue in the future.
> Developing SCRamjet on missiles is much easier than on aircraft. I wonder why ISRO not helpign in Turbofan R&D with heat resistant materials, etc.
> Just like you're saying AMCA can do with or w/o VCE, similarly i'm saying AHCA can do with or w/o Ramjet/SCRamjet.
> If AHCA will need turbofan/turbojet + ramjet/scramjet then 4 engines setup automatically becomes Super-Heavy jet. It'll be ASHCA. I'm still imagining a 2 engine setup.
> So there is no need for AHCA to wait for SCRamjet to mature till 2055.
> Startospheric flight with SCRamjet will require afterburner which increases IRS, means huge amount of fuel, means Super-heavy weight. The turning radius will be huge. For example SR-71 at Mach 3 takes 80Kms for U-turn.
1724760805456.png


Such thing is better suited to different thread altogether.


> What you are refering to AMCA MK2 is an inevitable MLU, like EF-2000 has Tranche, Rafale has F#, USAF jets have Blocks. I'm talking about either simply inflate AMCA like LCA>MWF or a new project in parallel with AMCA as LSP.
> N-LCA is ok for research purpose but into production squads would be worst decision today & future of global Naval aviation. I'll never support my income tax after it.

In short our current opinions look like following table. Let me know corrections if any. I'm trying to arrive at values of empty weight, fuel weight, payload weight, thrust required, etc. It would be good if you share your guess of what you visualize.

1724767291965.png



I believe drones will be made to carry heavier weapons, while the fighters themselves will be more sensor and fuel-heavy with smaller weapons bays. 'Cause it's pretty cheap and fast to fly a drone and fire off standoff munitions.
Yes that's a possibility but we are not talking about old gen big weapons but customized ones with folding fins which are already being developed.

As per General Hostage, who was the commander of USAF's ACC, the F-35 has lower RCS than the F-22.
People are confused about it because they are comparing the F-22's achieved RCS to the F-35's goal. But the F-35 also surpassed its goal.
Armed forces personel of every country are oblidged to say all good about their worst product also bcoz there are always lagging nations to buy them.
Technology also depends on geopolitics. It is possible that USA's F-35 have better quality RAM & EW than export variant.

We are not doing anything fancy, our main goal is success. The Russians are far more experienced than India is, and they are bound to know more than we do right now, way more.
There is big list of global industrial blunders in every domain also, especially in developed & leading countries but media seldom talks about it.
Ultimately the RCS figure matters. The Quora analysis which you shared showed so many reasons. But Russia or any country wont ever tell exactly reasons for higher RCS.

AFAIK, the F-22's export ban wasn't because of stealth. It carries other unique technologies that they did not want to leak at the time.
So we have to think what unique tech at that time. Many of us know the basic category of components in a jet.
Few things which i can think of are airframe cooling system, Transpiration cooling for nozzles/plume, avionics computer, the F119 engine, RAM, etc. There are diagrams of many jets available on internet. People should ask what they don't understand. Following is F-22's diagram:
1724766912777.jpeg


As per the IAF, MKI is not underpowered.
As per mathematics & LIVE performance it is.
And remember that armed forces of all nations are oblidged to say all good diplomatically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
I won't talk much about AMCA in this thread bcoz i launched this thread due to dissatisfaction with AMCA.😆
The size, shape, weight, structure of AHCA would depend on type & number of weapons it would carry.

LEARNING LESSONS FROM 5GEN JETS F-22, F-35, Su-57
New gen jets would require new gen weapons with modified shape & folding fins, perhaps a different attck profile, like F-22 & F-35 will get MAKO, AGM-88E AARGM-ER, Kh-58UShKE, etc.
For example it is not possible or feasible for Su-57 to carry Brahmos like big missile even if its tandem IWBs are joined.
View attachment 35792

We see that IWBs of both F-22 & Su-57 have some disadvantage.
Su-57 carries only 4 AAMs currently, may be 6 in future.
F-22 cannot carry weapon bigger than JDAM currently. MLU might add something.
View attachment 35790


Su-57 can carry cruise missle, Kh-58UShKE internally.
View attachment 35791

A bigger collage shows some current weapons fit, some don't.
View attachment 35793

A new jet can combine both capability by having multiple IWBs. the centerline IWB will carry customized CrM, AShM, ARM, etc.
And 2 parallel IWBs can carry 2 AAMs each, total 4.
If we imagine a modified diagram of Su-57 & F-22 then it would look like following:
NOTE - This is just preliminary & notional, otherwise the engines & internal components will obviously have to be adjusted.
View attachment 35797

The following is 1 of the many examples already created by CAD artist Rodrigo Avella in his vision of F/A-XX :
The IWB bottom edge would be wider than F-22.

View attachment 35794

AMCA is not supposed to carry heavy weapons, only small missiles and glide bombs for the A2G role. Its main role is air superiority. An extension of that is SEAD/DEAD via small bombs meant to destroy trucks and exposed radars. The F-22 has the same role.

The Russians merely combined the two requirements of AS and strike into one on the Su-57.

We have no need to internalize Brahmos-MA, its standoff range doesn't require a stealthy platform. And Brahmos on MKI will give us 800-1000 km range.
 
> But that doesn't mean that every maker/country need to have same R&D procedure & timeline. This is an era of urgency for us & right time to absorb so many people into industry. Small countries sprung up after World Wars. This is the time to show industrial maturity.
> As every country as well qualified citizens in different domains, they also can question how their tax is utilized, they also know what they are saying, especially after multiple scams & delays. Not even in USA & Europe the qualified citizens always fully agree with DoD/MoD decisions. We even see protests on news. And that's why this kind of forums exist. There are even private Thinktanks & Study-institutes which qualified citizens join or contribute.
> 30 years is huuuuuuuuuge time for R&D. IAF is just the operator. We'll never get precise insight into who's fault is it, so collectively - GoI, MoD, DoD, ADA, NAL, DRDO, HAL, IAF, etc have made repeated mistakes ignoring R&D bcoz of which LCA, MWF, AMCA, UCAVs, everything has got delayed by decades. Like i said, the engine is deciding factor.
> It is not a thumb rule that big jets will have bigger turnaround time & lesser availability. It is a simple tech evolution & economics that certain size bigger jet per sortie can deliver more firepower with higher loitering time, sometimes in stealth mode. And the electricity required for avionics, equipments, DEW, etc will require much better engine. F-35 got hit by these points & now it is getting MLU/ECU, but we are not at par with them, hence our AMCA, Rafale, MWF will never satisfy the tech points mentioned. Just have a look at the table i created in 1st post. You may create your own table based on your opinion & vison & share with us.

The reason why bigger jets are difficult to maintain is because they put as much latest tech and capability into it and that makes things expensive. For example, it's easier to maintain a 150 kg radar versus a 650 kg one.

As for India, right now, we only have 1 organization capable of designing and fielding an engine and that's DRDO. And because the DRDO Chief has a lot of power in the govt, other companies do not want to compete. Any attempt to design an engine can only be carried out in the private sector for civilian use first, which is why HAL is working on a civilian version for use on business jets. By the time multiple companies show up with such capabilities, we are talking 2060s-70s, not earlier than that.

The private sector is currently focusing on drone engines, small and medium-sized ones, from handheld to Predateor/Reaper sized ones. HAL is working on a business jet class engine. This will be followed by a militarized version for large drones like Triton. DRDO is developing everything above that; IUSAV, LCA, AMCA etc.

Let them go ahead with TEDBF & AMCA as LSP, & in parallel work for common fuselage jet for IAF & IN. The easiest thing they can do is inflate AMCA with F110 or AL-41 engine.

ADA says they won't be developing a common airframe for the IAF and IN. The orders are big enough for both and they do not want to compromise on the design trying to fit both their requirements. That's why there won't be an N-AMCA, any new naval design will be clean-sheet after TEDBF.

Any official statement, news, article, video?

It's an opinion.

AMCA is good enough all the way to the 2070s-80s, so there is no need to make a cousin. An AMCA Mk2 made by 2060 will take us all the way to 2100.

ADA can focus all their resources on a 6th gen TEDBF 2.0 and a 7th gen AHCA.

> Developing SCRamjet on missiles is much easier than on aircraft. I wonder why ISRO not helpign in Turbofan R&D with heat resistant materials, etc.
> Just like you're saying AMCA can do with or w/o VCE, similarly i'm saying AHCA can do with or w/o Ramjet/SCRamjet.
> If AHCA will need turbofan/turbojet + ramjet/scramjet then 4 engines setup automatically becomes Super-Heavy jet. It'll be ASHCA. I'm still imagining a 2 engine setup.
> So there is no need for AHCA to wait for SCRamjet to mature till 2055.
> Startospheric flight with SCRamjet will require afterburner which increases IRS, means huge amount of fuel, means Super-heavy weight. The turning radius will be huge. For example SR-71 at Mach 3 takes 80Kms for U-turn.
View attachment 35818

Mig-41 should tell us what size a jet of this class will be. I don't think we have to make AHCA bigger than it.

Btw, a turbojet-ramjet is one engine called "air turboramjet." It's a new class of hybrid engines.


So, for the hypersonic regime, we may need a turboramjet + scramjet. How this development will take place is yet to be seen. We could see it with SR-72 and our space shuttle. Maybe some Chinese design could show up before ours.

> What you are refering to AMCA MK2 is an inevitable MLU, like EF-2000 has Tranche, Rafale has F#, USAF jets have Blocks. I'm talking about either simply inflate AMCA like LCA>MWF or a new project in parallel with AMCA as LSP.
> N-LCA is ok for research purpose but into production squads would be worst decision today & future of global Naval aviation. I'll never support my income tax after it.

Same thing. I'm talking about AMCA undergoing an LCA Mk1 to Mk2 transition. Slightly bigger, more fuel, more powerful engines. Similar to the conversion from Hornet to Super Hornet.

In short our current opinions look like following table. Let me know corrections if any. I'm trying to arrive at values of empty weight, fuel weight, payload weight, thrust required, etc. It would be good if you share your guess of what you visualize.

View attachment 35834

Pretty much. Except that "Super-Heavy" will be relative to the technology of the time. For all we know it could end up being smaller and lighter than the MKI.

AMCA is like an MLU-ed F-22. AMCA has higher fuel fraction and almost the same internal carriage. ADA has made a version with sidebays and one without, dunno which one's been chosen.

Armed forces personel of every country are oblidged to say all good about their worst product also bcoz there are always lagging nations to buy them.
Technology also depends on geopolitics. It is possible that USA's F-35 have better quality RAM & EW than export variant.

US F-35s will have greater unlocked potential than export customers. They will simply restrict processing power to limit radar range for example. Or the EW system will manage lesser bands at any one time.

As per mathematics & LIVE performance it is.
And remember that armed forces of all nations are oblidged to say all good diplomatically.

Not in this case. The MKI's dogfighting capabilities should be compared to other jets on 25% fuel or equivalent fuel fraction, not a blanket half fuel. For example, LCA can only fly for less than an hour on full internal fuel, but MKI can do more than that at half tank. LCA enters a dogfight at half tank, but MKI does the same with quarter tank.

With quarter tank, the MKI has a fuel fraction of 0.12 whereas LCA is at 0.15, quite comparable. But TWR is 1.25 vs 1.1 resply.
Similarly, Typhoon at half tank is 0.17, and has a TWR of 1.24. So the MKI is not underpowered. In fact, with only quarter tank, the MKI will perform better than other aircraft with half tank. Plus TVC.

If any boost in thrust is necessary, the MKI can get the same out of a marginal rise to 132 KN, to compensate for any increase in weight during MLU. This is the reason why the IAF is not going for the 117S.
 
It's enough. It can carry AAMs, and small bombs (500 kg and below) and short range missiles. That's its main job.


As it's currently designed, the AMCA's IWB only has room for 2 BVRs and 2 SOW.

I know it won't operate alone but they should have made provision for a smaller bay to carry CCMs imo.

The good thing is that DRDO will now need to build a new class of small PGMs (like SAAW) and AAMs to fit the AMCA's bays, just as LM did with the F-35. Case in point: SDB series of bombs.

These weapons, when ready, will dramatically increase the load out of our other fighters.
 

As it's currently designed, the AMCA's IWB only has room for 2 BVRs and 2 SOW.

I know it won't operate alone but they should have made provision for a smaller bay to carry CCMs imo.

The good thing is that DRDO will now need to build a new class of small PGMs (like SAAW) and AAMs to fit the AMCA's bays, just as LM did with the F-35. Case in point: SDB series of bombs.

These weapons, when ready, will dramatically increase the load out of our other fighters.
Internal load of 6 BVRAAMs is necessary IMO for air superiority missions. Even F-35, a so called strike fighter is getting a sidekick in Block 4 to carry 6 AMRAAMs in its IWB. Having just 4 is not good at all.
 

As it's currently designed, the AMCA's IWB only has room for 2 BVRs and 2 SOW.

I know it won't operate alone but they should have made provision for a smaller bay to carry CCMs imo.

The good thing is that DRDO will now need to build a new class of small PGMs (like SAAW) and AAMs to fit the AMCA's bays, just as LM did with the F-35. Case in point: SDB series of bombs.

These weapons, when ready, will dramatically increase the load out of our other fighters.

2 missiles + 2 bombs is a pretty standard loadout for the MWB, same as the F-22.

If the missiles have both IR and RF seekers, then we won't need 2 additional WVR missiles for this mission.

The real goal will be to just make a VLO WVR missile for the wingtip. ASRAAM is already below 0.01m2, so getting a similar missile down to -40dBsm class wouldn't be difficult. The main point of a wingtip missile is to snapfire before disengagement. Weapons bays prevent that. The J-20 loses stealth to do the same with their contraption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Internal load of 6 BVRAAMs is necessary IMO for air superiority missions. Even F-35, a so called strike fighter is getting a sidekick in Block 4 to carry 6 AMRAAMs in its IWB. Having just 4 is not good at all.

That's a result of their failure to expand the size of the F-22 program. It's a half-as*ed measure.

Instead of 400-750 F-22s, they have to manage with just 125 or so, and have to compensate for the rest with 300 F-35As. Robert Gates killed the USAF singlehandedly.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
AMCA is not supposed to carry heavy weapons, only small missiles and glide bombs for the A2G role. Its main role is air superiority. An extension of that is SEAD/DEAD via small bombs meant to destroy trucks and exposed radars. The F-22 has the same role.
It's an opinion.
AMCA is good enough all the way to the 2070s-80s, so there is no need to make a cousin. An AMCA Mk2 made by 2060 will take us all the way to 2100.
Buddy, wrong reply to purely AHCA based post. And at least i'm not here to blindly agree with GoI/MoD/DoD & repeat their words. If they wan't to use MKI & other jets for next 100-150 years also, we can't do anything except hunger strikeo_O:ROFLMAO:, but i dont wanna talk about it here. You tag me in AMCA thread.
And reminder again - the idea is learn from limitations of every jet.

ADA can focus all their resources on a 6th gen TEDBF 2.0 and a 7th gen AHCA.
Perhaps you can create a 7gen thread & outline your vision about it, an ASHCA, not AHCA. And tag me in Hypesonic thread, we'll discuss SCRamjet, etc.

As for India, right now, we only have 1 organization capable of designing and fielding an engine and that's DRDO. And because the DRDO Chief has a lot of power in the govt, other companies do not want to compete. Any attempt to design an engine can only be carried out in the private sector for civilian use first, which is why HAL is working on a civilian version for use on business jets. By the time multiple companies show up with such capabilities, we are talking 2060s-70s, not earlier than that.

The private sector is currently focusing on drone engines, small and medium-sized ones, from handheld to Predateor/Reaper sized ones. HAL is working on a business jet class engine. This will be followed by a militarized version for large drones like Triton. DRDO is developing everything above that; IUSAV, LCA, AMCA etc.
Current actions are not good enough for most populous country in the world with unployment rising.
In engine tech as weall know there are 3 ways - import is shortest way, JV takes medium time, total self effort takes longest time. But like i said other nations, both small & big, developed a sense of urgency. It is luck & unpredictable thing if war will break out or not & when. Sometimes nations get dragged into others' conflicts. Sometimes a hostile nation preemtively strikes which our neighbors have done already few times. After that also we have not learned.
We are making LCA, MWF, AMCA only bcoz of lack of engine tech. If our GTRE or private firm could make any type of engine required then we would have made variety of fighters, bombers, etc & exported to world, plain simple.
But every country not having that industrial capability gives excuses - "we don't need this/that", "It is not supposed to do this/that", etc.
The next few decades are going to be unpredictible & delicate situation due to Chinese military buildup.
If future USA's regime becomes hostile or non-cooperative to us then we'll get a nice kick & sense of urgency.

The Russians merely combined the two requirements of AS and strike into one on the Su-57.
So that's a good learning they took. I hope if we take it too now, or never. We don't have to wait for rest of world to do something 1st.

We have no need to internalize Brahmos-MA, its standoff range doesn't require a stealthy platform. And Brahmos on MKI will give us 800-1000 km range.
> We have an urgent need actually to transition to new gen weapons with not just internal electronic improvements but also body design. Brahmos NG will be shorter. We just need to alter it little more. And more cutomized weapns are needed.
> Bcoz MKI is non-stealthy hence it needs huge standoff range weapons llike Brahmos. A stealth jet will be detected late at shorter ranges hence it can launch custom weapons from shorter ranges. You gave example of F-22 above, now it got the MAKO missile. I hope we will learn.

The reason why bigger jets are difficult to maintain is because they put as much latest tech and capability into it and that makes things expensive. For example, it's easier to maintain a 150 kg radar versus a 650 kg one.
Lots of things around us are actually costly like car compared to 2-wheeler w.r.t mileage, maintenance, etc. Military economics is different than civil. In era of every gen - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & now 5th things were costly initially. There were always some people who panicked in every gen's era o_O 🙀 🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO:
Also things will be costly more in capitalist countries than communist & socialst mixed economies.
Nobody knew that subsonic P-51 Mustang will be replaced by supersonic F-22. It is merely natural tech evolution & requirement.
Difficulty doesn't stop Development.


1724930344099.png


ADA says they won't be developing a common airframe for the IAF and IN. The orders are big enough for both and they do not want to compromise on the design trying to fit both their requirements. That's why there won't be an N-AMCA, any new naval design will be clean-sheet after TEDBF.
Does that mean that Rafale was comproise by Dassault just bcoz a Naval jet needs stronger landing gear & lower speed stability. It is better to develop a common body jet 1st for Navy. N-AHCA =TEDBF 2.0 which can be a clean-sheet design, which can be used for AF too.

Mig-41 should tell us what size a jet of this class will be. I don't think we have to make AHCA bigger than it.
You wan't other nations to dictate our projects? Or you wan't our DoD to sit & wait for others to do things 1st & then beg for imports?
My last post showing F-22 & Su-57 diagrams was a step towards acertaining the size & weight of AHCA = Empty weight + fuel + internal payload. And regarding its engines, i won't be considering what GoI/GTRE BABUs will be doing at snail's pace but what is certainly doable in urgent mode.

Btw, a turbojet-ramjet is one engine called "air turboramjet." It's a new class of hybrid engines.

So, for the hypersonic regime, we may need a turboramjet + scramjet. How this development will take place is yet to be seen. We could see it with SR-72 and our space shuttle. Maybe some Chinese design could show up before ours.
Yes, i checked Turbo-ramjet on Wikipedia. It seems to use Hydrogen & Oxygen which would increase the size & weight of a practical aircraft a lot.
And apart from French Nord 1500 Griffon II there doesn't seem to be any other test aircraft.

1724931631372.png

Rest can be discussed in Hypersonic thread.

Same thing. I'm talking about AMCA undergoing an LCA Mk1 to Mk2 transition. Slightly bigger, more fuel, more powerful engines. Similar to the conversion from Hornet to Super Hornet.
Heavy jets like F-22, F-15, Su-57, Su-3X, J-20 are not just SLIGHTLY bigger & heavier than F-18 SH, MiG-29/35, Rafale, EF-2000.

Pretty much. Except that "Super-Heavy" will be relative to the technology of the time. For all we know it could end up being smaller and lighter than the MKI.
For that 1st you have to share your idea of realistic empty weight, fuel weight, internal payload weight. It is your vision of 7gen AHCA which will be much bigger & heavier than MKI.
But my idea is to technically come closer to NGAD, F/A-XX, GCAP, FCAS. If AHCA can be around MKI then it is very good.
As i highlighted some of the heavy jets above & the 6gen might be 30-50% heavier, & some custom AGMs carried internally & not just AAMs + DEW-CIWS, it is highly unlikely that their 6gen would be less voluminous & lighter than MKI.
But if we can package an AHCA jet near MKI, it is very good.

AMCA is like an MLU-ed F-22. AMCA has higher fuel fraction and almost the same internal carriage. ADA has made a version with sidebays and one without, dunno which one's been chosen.
Depends on what things are in MLU. Both will have today's standards of computing but total computing power of F-22 would be higher as USA is ahead in H/w & S/w R&D. Also, we have just begun optical sensors R&D while they got DAS & HMDS in 1990s.

Not in this case. The MKI's dogfighting capabilities should be compared to other jets on 25% fuel or equivalent fuel fraction, not a blanket half fuel. For example, LCA can only fly for less than an hour on full internal fuel, but MKI can do more than that at half tank. LCA enters a dogfight at half tank, but MKI does the same with quarter tank.
With quarter tank, the MKI has a fuel fraction of 0.12 whereas LCA is at 0.15, quite comparable. But TWR is 1.25 vs 1.1 resply.
Similarly, Typhoon at half tank is 0.17, and has a TWR of 1.24. So the MKI is not underpowered. In fact, with only quarter tank, the MKI will perform better than other aircraft with half tank. Plus TVC.
If any boost in thrust is necessary, the MKI can get the same out of a marginal rise to 132 KN, to compensate for any increase in weight during MLU. This is the reason why the IAF is not going for the 117S.
That way by reducing fuel & matching with light/medium jet you are intentionally degrading the design purpose of heavy jet. That way it would be wrong to make a heavy jet in the 1st place. You forgot that when design weight increases then the thrust of engines are also researched to maintain or increase the TWR.
The light/medium jets would run out of fuel quickly while heavy jets would still have a lot & their aerodynamics & aglity is designed with more fuel.
50% fuel is taken as an adhoc measure bcoz different jets have different empty weight, engine weight, # of engines, SFC, thrust, fuel capacity. The jets start, taxi, takeoff, climb, reach the conflict zone, engage in BVR combat, then dogight begins. So 50% fuel might have been consumed already. But the airframe TWR is the only mathematical measure left.
For example, F-35 has 8-9 tons fuel,
Su-3X have 11 tons fuel,
F-22 has 8.2 tons fuel.
But F-22's F119 engines have lowest SFC which if coupled with higher fuel capacity & airframe TWR would give TRIPLE advantage.
In a TVC maneuver if a jet comes to zero speed then it should be able to accelerate fast upwards where the net thrust is lowest.

1724946044036.png


2 missiles + 2 bombs is a pretty standard loadout for the MWB, same as the F-22.
Learning lesson for entire world. USA won't repeat that mistake with NGAD, F/A-XX.

If the missiles have both IR and RF seekers, then we won't need 2 additional WVR missiles for this mission.
The real goal will be to just make a VLO WVR missile for the wingtip. ASRAAM is already below 0.01m2, so getting a similar missile down to -40dBsm class wouldn't be difficult. The main point of a wingtip missile is to snapfire before disengagement. Weapons bays prevent that. The J-20 loses stealth to do the same with their contraption.
That's is exactly why 6gen has outlined DEW-CIWS to defeat multi-spectral AAMs. And that's why more attempts means more AAMs will be required.
Stealth missiles were tested but not materialized, IDK why.
1724999807258.jpeg

1724999817439.jpeg


That's a result of their failure to expand the size of the F-22 program. It's a half-as*ed measure.

Instead of 400-750 F-22s, they have to manage with just 125 or so, and have to compensate for the rest with 300 F-35As. Robert Gates killed the USAF singlehandedly.
So you do think that F-22 should have got higher IWB capacity.
But you don't want our products to get over those limits & mistakes, WHY?
Just like you quote dual-band AAM to close gap b/w RF BVR-AAM & IR-CCM, similarly i'm projecting an idea of AHCA to improve the economics per sortie & at least narrow gap b/w AMCA, TEDBF & NGAD, F/A-XX. We can't afford to severely lag again by an entire gen for next 50 years. Again it would like "Can't swallow, can't spit" :sick:❌🤮❌ 🤣
IAF chief said they have roadmap to 6gen. What is it? :rolleyes::unsure:😃
 
Buddy, wrong reply to purely AHCA based post. And at least i'm not here to blindly agree with GoI/MoD/DoD & repeat their words. If they wan't to use MKI & other jets for next 100-150 years also, we can't do anything except hunger strikeo_O:ROFLMAO:, but i dont wanna talk about it here. You tag me in AMCA thread.
And reminder again - the idea is learn from limitations of every jet.


Perhaps you can create a 7gen thread & outline your vision about it, an ASHCA, not AHCA. And tag me in Hypesonic thread, we'll discuss SCRamjet, etc.


Current actions are not good enough for most populous country in the world with unployment rising.
In engine tech as weall know there are 3 ways - import is shortest way, JV takes medium time, total self effort takes longest time. But like i said other nations, both small & big, developed a sense of urgency. It is luck & unpredictable thing if war will break out or not & when. Sometimes nations get dragged into others' conflicts. Sometimes a hostile nation preemtively strikes which our neighbors have done already few times. After that also we have not learned.
We are making LCA, MWF, AMCA only bcoz of lack of engine tech. If our GTRE or private firm could make any type of engine required then we would have made variety of fighters, bombers, etc & exported to world, plain simple.
But every country not having that industrial capability gives excuses - "we don't need this/that", "It is not supposed to do this/that", etc.
The next few decades are going to be unpredictible & delicate situation due to Chinese military buildup.
If future USA's regime becomes hostile or non-cooperative to us then we'll get a nice kick & sense of urgency.

We need to go by our own timeframe, not others'. 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. 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.

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.

So that's a good learning they took. I hope if we take it too now, or never. We don't have to wait for rest of world to do something 1st.

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.

> We have an urgent need actually to transition to new gen weapons with not just internal electronic improvements but also body design. Brahmos NG will be shorter. We just need to alter it little more. And more cutomized weapns are needed.
> Bcoz MKI is non-stealthy hence it needs huge standoff range weapons llike Brahmos. A stealth jet will be detected late at shorter ranges hence it can launch custom weapons from shorter ranges. You gave example of F-22 above, now it got the MAKO missile. I hope we will learn.

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.

Lots of things around us are actually costly like car compared to 2-wheeler w.r.t mileage, maintenance, etc. Military economics is different than civil. In era of every gen - 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & now 5th things were costly initially. There were always some people who panicked in every gen's era o_O 🙀 🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO:
Also things will be costly more in capitalist countries than communist & socialst mixed economies.
Nobody knew that subsonic P-51 Mustang will be replaced by supersonic F-22. It is merely natural tech evolution & requirement.
Difficulty doesn't stop Development.

It's supposed to be relative to the previous one, not spanning across generations. The budget impact only takes the previous one into account.

Does that mean that Rafale was comproise by Dassault just bcoz a Naval jet needs stronger landing gear & lower speed stability. It is better to develop a common body jet 1st for Navy. N-AHCA =TEDBF 2.0 which can be a clean-sheet design, which can be used for AF too.

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.

You wan't other nations to dictate our projects? Or you wan't our DoD to sit & wait for others to do things 1st & then beg for imports?
My last post showing F-22 & Su-57 diagrams was a step towards acertaining the size & weight of AHCA = Empty weight + fuel + internal payload. And regarding its engines, i won't be considering what GoI/GTRE BABUs will be doing at snail's pace but what is certainly doable in urgent mode.

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.

Heavy jets like F-22, F-15, Su-57, Su-3X, J-20 are not just SLIGHTLY bigger & heavier than F-18 SH, MiG-29/35, Rafale, EF-2000.

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.

For that 1st you have to share your idea of realistic empty weight, fuel weight, internal payload weight. It is your vision of 7gen AHCA which will be much bigger & heavier than MKI.
But my idea is to technically come closer to NGAD, F/A-XX, GCAP, FCAS. If AHCA can be around MKI then it is very good.
As i highlighted some of the heavy jets above & the 6gen might be 30-50% heavier, & some custom AGMs carried internally & not just AAMs + DEW-CIWS, it is highly unlikely that their 6gen would be less voluminous & lighter than MKI.
But if we can package an AHCA jet near MKI, it is very good.

Mig-41 will provide us the template. We can't guess it yet. Mig-31's MTOW is 46T.

Depends on what things are in MLU. Both will have today's standards of computing but total computing power of F-22 would be higher as USA is ahead in H/w & S/w R&D. Also, we have just begun optical sensors R&D while they got DAS & HMDS in 1990s.

Avionics is subjective. LCA has more processing power than the current F-22.

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++.

That way by reducing fuel & matching with light/medium jet you are intentionally degrading the design purpose of heavy jet. That way it would be wrong to make a heavy jet in the 1st place. You forgot that when design weight increases then the thrust of engines are also researched to maintain or increase the TWR.
The light/medium jets would run out of fuel quickly while heavy jets would still have a lot & their aerodynamics & aglity is designed with more fuel.
50% fuel is taken as an adhoc measure bcoz different jets have different empty weight, engine weight, # of engines, SFC, thrust, fuel capacity. The jets start, taxi, takeoff, climb, reach the conflict zone, engage in BVR combat, then dogight begins. So 50% fuel might have been consumed already. But the airframe TWR is the only mathematical measure left.
For example, F-35 has 8-9 tons fuel,
Su-3X have 11 tons fuel,
F-22 has 8.2 tons fuel.
But F-22's F119 engines have lowest SFC which if coupled with higher fuel capacity & airframe TWR would give TRIPLE advantage.
In a TVC maneuver if a jet comes to zero speed then it should be able to accelerate fast upwards where the net thrust is lowest.

View attachment 35874

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.

Learning lesson for entire world. USA won't repeat that mistake with NGAD, F/A-XX.

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.

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.

That's is exactly why 6gen has outlined DEW-CIWS to defeat multi-spectral AAMs. And that's why more attempts means more AAMs will be required.
Stealth missiles were tested but not materialized, IDK why.
View attachment 35890
View attachment 35891

Dunno how that would work. If a laser is capable of destroying AAMs, then AAMs will become useless.

So you do think that F-22 should have got higher IWB capacity.
But you don't want our products to get over those limits & mistakes, WHY?
Just like you quote dual-band AAM to close gap b/w RF BVR-AAM & IR-CCM, similarly i'm projecting an idea of AHCA to improve the economics per sortie & at least narrow gap b/w AMCA, TEDBF & NGAD, F/A-XX. We can't afford to severely lag again by an entire gen for next 50 years. Again it would like "Can't swallow, can't spit" :sick:❌🤮❌ 🤣
IAF chief said they have roadmap to 6gen. What is it? :rolleyes::unsure:😃

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
😵😵‍💫🤐:LOL:🤣


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.

1725776836199.png


> 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.

1725780480228.png


> 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.

1725781449577.png

1725781387195.jpeg

1725781435252.jpeg


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.

1725810938470.png


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🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO: 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.
 
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.

We need to go by IAF's requirements. Even if there's a need for a stopgap aircraft between AMCA and a "7th" gen aircraft, the timeframe needs to make sense. We are merely 30 years away, and AMCA is 10 years away, so nothing's gonna happen until AMCA is ready. Then IAF will have only 20 years to get something out after AMCA.

> 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.

Dassault isn't a fan of FCAS. They prefer to modernize the Rafale into a Super Rafale instead. They do not want cooperation with the Germans either. The French govt is pushing FCAS on them.

> 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.

The Americans, Russians and Chinese have different requirements than we do.

As I said, we are much closer to the French than the other three 'cause we are the only ones with a primary multirole requirement.

With that said, size does matter, but AMCA is enough to plug the gap for now.

> 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.

There's nothing realistic for 2040+. Only AMCA is 2040+. It will achieve IOC sometime around 2035, the FOC serial production deliveries could happen until 2047 for 5 remaining squadrons. And we may take up a Super AMCA after that at best for delivery before 2055, 4-5 more squadrons.

GoI won't allow ADA to develop a new aircraft for the IAF until AMCA achieves IOC. So in 2040, we will only see the next fighter jet as a TD or in early flight testing. The reason being senior scientists and ADA itself will strongarm their way into AHCA while giving up on AMCA. That's also why AMCA took this long to get clearance. GoI clearly stated AMCA won't move ahead without LCA progressing to a certain level.

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.

Long range and high endurance are different requirements. Both need a lot of fuel, but the latter doesn't require top performing engines, only fuel-efficient engines. For example, F100 vs F414.

Furthermore, a high endurance aircraft can also be designed to have more fuel fraction. For example, both Gripen E and LCA Mk2 are much smaller than the F-22, MKI etc, but both aircraft will have more range on internal fuel than the other two jets. Just because you have size doesn't mean you also have high endurance. Similarly, both Rafale and Typhoon also outrange the F-22. The smaller F-35 also outranges the larger F-22.

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.

Both ranges are significantly outside the envelope of most, if not all, SAM rings. Anything above 300 km is outside radar range. You can even fire the missiles from below horizon and allow them to climb on their own power.

So Brahmos doesn't help make your point. LRGB, SPICE etc are much more suitable when making that point, and that's where the argument is used.

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.

I'm not supporting the MKI, we are just stuck with it for a very long time. If we had the money and the AMCA was available today, I would have junked it and replaced it with Rafale/AMCA within the next 10-15 years.

> 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'm only going by what ADA said. They don't want to convert AMCA for naval use. That's why they have branched development out into two separate projects, AMCA and TEDBF. The TEDBF team will later develop a stealth jet for naval use.

> 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.

Because Mig-41 is mach 4.5, stratospheric jet or even space-capable, so ramjet/scramjet combo with turbofan/turbojet. The others are normal fighter jets with turbofans for sub-20 km altitude. They are not in the same class.

> 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"

What you are referring to is a TEDBF 2.0, which I believe will be a NGAD/FCAS/GCAP equivalent.

> 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.

Any new development will need 20 years. I don't see anything new happening outside AMCA during that period.

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.

That was back then. Right now your smartphone is multiple times faster than the computers the F-22 used back then.

Pretty much all aircraft use PowerPC architecture.

> 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.

View attachment 36126

> 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.

Different missions use different fuel profiles. When TWR above 1 is really required, it's only during air combat, everything else uses dry thrust. And for air combat, the MKI has sufficient power, hence the IAF is not interested in a higher thrust engine for the MKI. There's also the question of airframe limitations.

> 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.

You change the goalposts quite often. But you are arguing the point I'm making. Just because the USAF needs bigger aircraft doesn't mean the IAF will follow the "same doctrine & industrial decisions," your words.

So NGAD may carry more weapons, but the IAF may choose not to go in that direction.

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.

UCAV drones will mostly be single role. Only ISR capable drones will need radar, EW suite etc. Most other drones will only need fuel and weapons, perhaps very small radar and simpler EW protection for dogfighting.

> 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🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO: 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.

I think everybody is pretty much on the same level when it comes to drones.
 
As per the reports revealed recently, regarding agreement between India and France, developing an engine with something like 75 KN/110 KN class which can be developed further into 75/125 KN class engine. This is something very near to power of AL31 with significantly lower dimension and weight with much higher fuel efficiency. What I want to say is that we can get a heavy combat aircraft with MKI capability in much more compact size with significantly lower RCS far superior electronics and far batter capabilities. We can study whether an 1) enlarge ORCA can fulfill our requirements/ 2) A significant design elements and LRUS can go into AHCF/ 3) a totally new design will be required. However, we need to work faster on that. This all flows from our security assessment for next 3 to 4 decades which includes challenges and our ambitions for next 40 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
As per the reports revealed recently, regarding agreement between India and France, developing an engine with something like 75 KN/110 KN class which can be developed further into 75/125 KN class engine. This is something very near to power of AL31 with significantly lower dimension and weight with much higher fuel efficiency. What I want to say is that we can get a heavy combat aircraft with MKI capability in much more compact size with significantly lower RCS far superior electronics and far batter capabilities. We can study whether an 1) enlarge ORCA can fulfill our requirements/ 2) A significant design elements and LRUS can go into AHCF/ 3) a totally new design will be required. However, we need to work faster on that. This all flows from our security assessment for next 3 to 4 decades which includes challenges and our ambitions for next 40 years.

Rafale is already superior to the MKI, never mind AMCA.
 
After 5 pages it seems you are going in circles just echoing GoI/IAF/ADA & don't have any constructive/supportive thing to add on this thread.
Later, I'll make a table of all your points of negation & my clarification provided.


We need to go by IAF's requirements.
> We don't have to be their spokesperson, PRO (Public relations Officer) or oblidged to blindly support their delays, mistakes, failures, bad calls.
> IAF has 10s of 1000s of many types of professionals with different opinions & feedback. Hence once the top level guys make decisions, some are happy, some are not.
- managers, regular pilots, test pilots, aeronautical engineers, mechanics, technicians, logistics guys, etc. So it is very difficult to say that who exactly is quoting a particular capability for a particular decade.​
- Or may be GoI/MoD/CCS couldn't arrange funding​
- &/or AL-31/41 class engine couldn't be guaranteed to be arranged by import/GTRE.​
> Income Tax paying citizens, especially the techies have the right to discuss & clarify over national projects.

Even if there's a need for a stopgap aircraft between AMCA and a "7th" gen aircraft, the timeframe needs to make sense. We are merely 30 years away, and AMCA is 10 years away, so nothing's gonna happen until AMCA is ready. Then IAF will have only 20 years to get something out after AMCA.
Again going in circle w.r.t. Timeframe.
That's a perfect recipie to again lag behind by decades for decades rather than narrow the gap.🤦‍♂️
> Flanker class AHCA was suposed to be actual jet, but engine limited it to be AMCA, that's the brutal unacknowledged reality. So AMCA is the actual STOP-GAP jet which many people don't realize bcoz GoI/IAF/NAL/ADA will never ever accept it publicly.
> If our people can't manage Turbofan engine by self/JV/import on time then you can keep dreaming of your vision of 7gen SCRamjet SHCA this entire century.
> In tech-leader nations like USA, Russia, etc, Projects run in parallel by multiple teams for different combat jets, but in our country they APPEAR TO BE running in a queue as if there is only 1 team whose techies are strictly prohibited to focus on anything else even if they can.
-Ultimate result is that LCA got delayed by 2 decades & hence MWF, AMCA, TEDBF also getting delayed in queue.​
- F-15 didn't wait for F-16;
- Su-27 didn't wait for MiG-29;
- Su-57 didn't wait for Su-75;
- J-20 didn't wait for J-31/35.
- So there is no point on AHCA waiting for AMCA. The conceptual timeframe of AHCA does make sense ONLY IF steps are taken TODAY so that in next 16 YEARS by LATE 2030s AHCA can have IOC, then further producing AMCA won't be required.

Dassault isn't a fan of FCAS. They prefer to modernize the Rafale into a Super Rafale instead. They do not want cooperation with the Germans either. The French govt is pushing FCAS on them.
No point in getting deep into their national issues, differences, decisions & following footsteps of others like you only said. This is a matter of global tech evolution & grabbing the opportunity towards self-reliance & prosperous economy.

The Americans, Russians and Chinese have different requirements than we do.
As I said, we are much closer to the French than the other three 'cause we are the only ones with a primary multirole requirement.
With that said, size does matter, but AMCA is enough to plug the gap for now.
REALLY? :LOL:Again, nothing more to add here, being repeatitive & going in circles.
Your statements are always generic but i have been super specific always about stealth jet's performance in stealth mode w.r.t. payload, fuel, range, endurance, agility, etc. It is natural physics, chemistry, maths.
> As per 5th gen key characteristics, there is no difference b/w goals & objectives of F-22, Su-57, J-20 with their respective BVR-AAM+CCM.
- (AIM-120+AIM-9X) Vs (R-77+R-73) Vs (PL-21+PL-10), What different requirement do you see b/w them????:rolleyes:
- Multi-role 5gen jet is supposed to perform in multi-terrain & climate geography, be it Russia, China, USA. So this objective cannot be different for India/AMCA unless you can precisely highlight & explain properly.
> If you are satisfied with AMCA with just 4 BVR-AAMs & no CCMs then lets pray & wish each other luck.🙏:ROFLMAO:

There's nothing realistic for 2040+. Only AMCA is 2040+. It will achieve IOC sometime around 2035, the FOC serial production deliveries could happen until 2047 for 5 remaining squadrons. And we may take up a Super AMCA after that at best for delivery before 2055, 4-5 more squadrons.
> Yeah we all know that & that's the biggest problem that our people are not sufficiently realistic. :LOL: We all need to ask ourselves - Why India doesn't have F-22 & F-35 type jets? Why India is not developing NGAD type jet? Perhaps a tattoo on our hands will help.

GoI won't allow ADA to develop a new aircraft for the IAF until AMCA achieves IOC. So in 2040, we will only see the next fighter jet as a TD or in early flight testing.
The reason being senior scientists and ADA itself will strongarm their way into AHCA while giving up on AMCA. That's also why AMCA took this long to get clearance. GoI clearly stated AMCA won't move ahead without LCA progressing to a certain level.
That's what i said that ADA/NAL always wanted AHCA but neither high thrust engine could be arranged nor GoI cleared funding.
The day 6gen prototype metal cutting will happen in EU & USA will reveal NGAD just like B-21, then our people will get loose motion.:sick::ROFLMAO:


Long range and high endurance are different requirements. Both need a lot of fuel, but the latter doesn't require top performing engines, only fuel-efficient engines. For example, F100 vs F414.
Furthermore, a high endurance aircraft can also be designed to have more fuel fraction. For example, both Gripen E and LCA Mk2 are much smaller than the F-22, MKI etc, but both aircraft will have more range on internal fuel than the other two jets. Just because you have size doesn't mean you also have high endurance. Similarly, both Rafale and Typhoon also outrange the F-22. The smaller F-35 also outranges the larger F-22.
> We are not talking about a tanker or AEW&C jet. A fighter is not meant to just loiter/endure.😴🥱
> Long range also doesn't require top performing engine unless less time requirement is specified.
> What is top performing engine exactly mean for you? Just higher thrust or just fuel-efficient? Engine makers are trying to combine both.
- F-22's F119 engine has lowest SFC of 17.3 gm/KN/s, but F-22 is twin engines & with IWB.​
> Higher endurance/loitering also means less life of engine & airframe, more maintenance, more fuel budget, bad for economics. It is like a joy-ride wasting fuel. In future, CAP will reduce due to more coverage by radar stations, spy-sats & other intel assets.
> If you say that F100 is high performance & F414 is more fuel efficient then F100's dry SFC is 21.52 gm/KN/s & F414's dry SFC is 23 gm/KN/s.
> The idea is to learn from previous jets to design a better jet. Endurance, range, speed, agility are all highly practical end-results which we can only hope for the best till testing prototypes.
> Both engine design & airframe design are so tricky & evolving that there is no perfect formula w.r.t. T/W ratio which can be replicated as desired.
- Engine has multiple parameters like OPR, BPR, EPR, TIT, materials, cooling ways, nozzle design, etc, all of which collectively govern fuel consumption, dry/wet thrust.​
- Airframe's fuselage & wing design, with its lift, drag, # of engines, payload, operating altitude, also collectively govern fuel consumption, speed, range & endurance.​
- IWB makes a 5+gen jet somewhat humpy, bumpy, so it might be adding little drag compared to 4gen with free external space for weapons to hang. Hence there is no point in comparing any 4gen jet like Gripen, LCA, Su-3X, Rafale, Typhoon, etc with any of the 5gen jets bcoz the design priorities are different.
- Higher fuel fraction with compacted other components would be advantage to any kind of aircraft with any priority. It will directly increase T/W ratio but that's just 1 of the factors affecting fuel consumption, speed, range, endurance.
- F-22 was designed in 1980s. F-35 in 1990s hence it will get advantage of better compacted components & more fuel fraction. Hence USA would want to learn how to make NGAD better with speed, range, endurance & by VCE they found a way.​
- But we Indians are not willing to learn & just trying to hide our mistakes & incapability by illogical deviating statements.​

Both ranges are significantly outside the envelope of most, if not all, SAM rings. Anything above 300 km is outside radar range. You can even fire the missiles from below horizon and allow them to climb on their own power.
So Brahmos doesn't help make your point. LRGB, SPICE etc are much more suitable when making that point, and that's where the argument is used.
The ultimate point on this thread is to look at future, not drag the past. Su-3X are living their last 2-3 decades & after MLU also they are going to be good target practice for 5+gen jets. That's the fate decided by evolution. Till then Sukhoi lovers can sing & rejoice launching a giant missile like Brahmos. After its retirement we will be forced to use smaller NG variant on all medium jets & customized variants for stealth jet.

I'm not supporting the MKI, we are just stuck with it for a very long time. If we had the money and the AMCA was available today, I would have junked it and replaced it with Rafale/AMCA within the next 10-15 years.
Again going in circles. 10-15 years pass quickly. As per simple tech evolution, physics, maths, requirements & components of 5+/6gen jet, a medium jet like 4.5gen Rafale or an insufficient stealth jet like AMCA cannot replace a Flanker bcoz a Flanker class stealth jet is required.

I'm only going by what ADA said. They don't want to convert AMCA for naval use. That's why they have branched development out into two separate projects, AMCA and TEDBF. The TEDBF team will later develop a stealth jet for naval use.
They may not go for common fuselage jet for AF & Navy but the Navy needs a stealth jet which they are delaying & making big mistake. IN TEDBF jets or any 4.5gen jet will get badly beaten.

Because Mig-41 is mach 4.5, stratospheric jet or even space-capable, so ramjet/scramjet combo with turbofan/turbojet. The others are normal fighter jets with turbofans for sub-20 km altitude. They are not in the same class.
Thanks for accepting that they are not in same class, nor my vision matches it & hence you need a new different thread to discuss it.

What you are referring to is a TEDBF 2.0, which I believe will be a NGAD/FCAS/GCAP equivalent.
Whatever the latest tech we can put up. I don't like present TEDBF which is identical to Rafale. Our people are habituated to follow footsteps of old jets rather than take a creative leap.😴🥱

Any new development will need 20 years. I don't see anything new happening outside AMCA during that period.
That's what you think personally, not me. You are are thinking A-Z new jet while i imagine an inflated MK1 parallel to AMCA in 5-10 years & a new MK2 which can take 10-15 years. 5 year Block is a HUGE time if used sincerely.
Now i have to maintin a count of repeating - If LCA can be inflated to MWF then AMCA MK1 can be inflated to AHCA MK1 in parallel. If AMCA Mk1 prototype can fly before 2030 then its inflated AHCA MK1 TD can easily fly before 2035 with AL-41 if Russia allows or with AL-31.

That was back then. Right now your smartphone is multiple times faster than the computers the F-22 used back then.
Pretty much all aircraft use PowerPC architecture.
Computing H/w & S/w MLU is supposed to happen every 5 years roughly just like laptops, desktops, servers get upgraded or "tech refresh". So a F-22 type jet would be upgraded every 5 years & should have 2020+ computers today as per its design requirement.

Different missions use different fuel profiles. When TWR above 1 is really required, it's only during air combat, everything else uses dry thrust. And for air combat, the MKI has sufficient power, hence the IAF is not interested in a higher thrust engine for the MKI. There's also the question of airframe limitations.
Again going in circles.🤦‍♂️
> Multi-role Fighter needs to have good TWR to use & outperform when required rather than underperform & die. It is like carrying umbrella, raincoat in rainy season, we don't know when it may rain suddenly, lightly or heavily, for few mins or long time.
> Manual throttling as well as Avionics S/w, FADEC, etc can suggest or control the fuel/thrust/speed as desired.
> I already showed TWR calculations of MKI compared to other jets & the videos are not satisfactory at least to me. An export variant is expected to be inferior to domestic one. IAF or any AF (not even RuAF & USAF) will never accept their weakness publicly.:censored:

You change the goalposts quite often. But you are arguing the point I'm making. Just because the USAF needs bigger aircraft doesn't mean the IAF will follow the "same doctrine & industrial decisions," your words.
Goalpost changing?? 🤦‍♂️You tried to change the entire agenda & focus of my thread by different timeline, different class concept & design vision, what about that????:LOL:
Since 1st intro post I'm crystal clear about my vision of common fuselage DESIGN of AHCA for IAF & IN,
like Rafale, rather than following DOCTRINE of USA to have 2 jets & leaving penetration to 1 of them only bcoz India doesn't have AF, Navy like USAF, USN & nor does it have so many bases around the world. But after 5 pages of calculations, diagrams, pics, points explanation also, your comprehension is poor. Or It seems you don't wan't to understand Evolution, Economics, Ergonomics & school level Physics, Maths also.🤦‍♂️🥱
> Doctrine is different from tech evolution & design requirement. You are mixing the 2 & getting confused.
- Everybody today desires the latest tech jet, 5gen jet at the least, but how they will use them depends on their geography, size of country, their enemy positions, etc.​
- It is like MKI, MKM, MKA, MKK, SM2, etc all are Su-3X variants, their user nations India, Malaysia, Algeria, China, Russia have different size, geography, climate, geopolitics. Still they all purchased the same DESIGN jet but they will have different DOCTRINE, strategy to use them.​
> Last time i'm explaining - nobody is trying to set record for biggest/heaviest fighter jet. It is just evolution of science, with objective to kill the enemy as far located as possible, as many numbers as possible & survive if possible.
- The heavy class fighters like F-22 carries 8 AAMs, Su-57 carries 6 AAMs, J-20 seems to carry 6 AAMs may be 8 in future. The aim is to successfully lock & fire all AAMs if possible.
- The aim of future jets AFAIK would be to carry 10/12/14 AAMs/AGMs of various sizes internally & fire all/most of them
. Smaller AAMs like CUDA/SACM/MSDM & bigger AAMs like JATM are being researched. Smaller, stealthy, customized dimension AGMs are being made.
- F-22 was air superiority fighter but could drop only GPS guided JDAM & SDB, not LGB. F-35 can carry variety of AGMs & AAMs but has limited capacity. If both these factors of weapons capacity & variety can be mixed into 1 jet with stronger engines then that would be true multirole stealth jet. And if it can be made for both AF & Navy in cost effetive way then it is best solution. And that's what my vision of AHCA is.
But medum stealth jets like AMCA, J-31/J-35, KF-21 can never ever achieve this goal of Economics per sortie due to smaller IWB.🤌

So NGAD may carry more weapons, but the IAF may choose not to go in that direction.
So IAF will go for less weapons worsening the economics per sortie & wasting fuel for joy ride???????? What nonsense???? 🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO:
It is not about NGAD, it is just an example. And it is just coincidence that in this era USA is leading.

UCAV drones will mostly be single role. Only ISR capable drones will need radar, EW suite etc. Most other drones will only need fuel and weapons, perhaps very small radar and simpler EW protection for dogfighting.
I think everybody is pretty much on the same level when it comes to drones.
> I specifically explained WINGMAN UCAV DRONE accompanying a piloted jet.
- A fast supercruising manned fighter is like a Stallion, while current state of UAV/UCAV is like a Donkey. When we ride horses fast then donkeys cannot match that speed, stamina.​
> UAV is generic term, UCAV is Combat UAV, more specifically a Fighter UCAV.
- Other types of drones may have different permutation & combination of payload, avionics, size, etc but i am skeptical if it will work well.​
- A UCAV with weapons but no radar is difficult to imagine. With small radar it will have to be heavily dependent on data link.​
- ISR UAV w/o weapons is not UCAV or Combat UAV. It might turn out to be good target practice.​
- If the manned fighter or radar UAV are taken out then weapons UCAV would be handicapped.​

CAUTION - This is also age of information war. So the advertisements, videos, infographics could be just notional or even misleading. No player wants to show all his cards upfront.
 
  • Like
Reactions: suryakiran
As per the reports revealed recently, regarding agreement between India and France, developing an engine with something like 75 KN/110 KN class which can be developed further into 75/125 KN class engine. This is something very near to power of AL31 with significantly lower dimension and weight with much higher fuel efficiency. What I want to say is that we can get a heavy combat aircraft with MKI capability in much more compact size with significantly lower RCS far superior electronics and far batter capabilities. We can study whether an 1) enlarge ORCA can fulfill our requirements/ 2) A significant design elements and LRUS can go into AHCF/ 3) a totally new design will be required. However, we need to work faster on that. This all flows from our security assessment for next 3 to 4 decades which includes challenges and our ambitions for next 40 years.
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.
1727851761303.png


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.
 
After 5 pages it seems you are going in circles just echoing GoI/IAF/ADA & don't have any constructive/supportive thing to add on this thread.
Later, I'll make a table of all your points of negation & my clarification provided.



> We don't have to be their spokesperson, PRO (Public relations Officer) or oblidged to blindly support their delays, mistakes, failures, bad calls.
> IAF has 10s of 1000s of many types of professionals with different opinions & feedback. Hence once the top level guys make decisions, some are happy, some are not.
- managers, regular pilots, test pilots, aeronautical engineers, mechanics, technicians, logistics guys, etc. So it is very difficult to say that who exactly is quoting a particular capability for a particular decade.​
- Or may be GoI/MoD/CCS couldn't arrange funding​
- &/or AL-31/41 class engine couldn't be guaranteed to be arranged by import/GTRE.​
> Income Tax paying citizens, especially the techies have the right to discuss & clarify over national projects.


Again going in circle w.r.t. Timeframe.
That's a perfect recipie to again lag behind by decades for decades rather than narrow the gap.🤦‍♂️
> Flanker class AHCA was suposed to be actual jet, but engine limited it to be AMCA, that's the brutal unacknowledged reality. So AMCA is the actual STOP-GAP jet which many people don't realize bcoz GoI/IAF/NAL/ADA will never ever accept it publicly.
> If our people can't manage Turbofan engine by self/JV/import on time then you can keep dreaming of your vision of 7gen SCRamjet SHCA this entire century.
> In tech-leader nations like USA, Russia, etc, Projects run in parallel by multiple teams for different combat jets, but in our country they APPEAR TO BE running in a queue as if there is only 1 team whose techies are strictly prohibited to focus on anything else even if they can.
-Ultimate result is that LCA got delayed by 2 decades & hence MWF, AMCA, TEDBF also getting delayed in queue.​
- F-15 didn't wait for F-16;
- Su-27 didn't wait for MiG-29;
- Su-57 didn't wait for Su-75;
- J-20 didn't wait for J-31/35.
- So there is no point on AHCA waiting for AMCA. The conceptual timeframe of AHCA does make sense ONLY IF steps are taken TODAY so that in next 16 YEARS by LATE 2030s AHCA can have IOC, then further producing AMCA won't be required.


No point in getting deep into their national issues, differences, decisions & following footsteps of others like you only said. This is a matter of global tech evolution & grabbing the opportunity towards self-reliance & prosperous economy.


REALLY?
:LOL:Again, nothing more to add here, being repeatitive & going in circles.
Your statements are always generic but i have been super specific always about stealth jet's performance in stealth mode w.r.t. payload, fuel, range, endurance, agility, etc. It is natural physics, chemistry, maths.
> As per 5th gen key characteristics, there is no difference b/w goals & objectives of F-22, Su-57, J-20 with their respective BVR-AAM+CCM.
- (AIM-120+AIM-9X) Vs (R-77+R-73) Vs (PL-21+PL-10), What different requirement do you see b/w them????:rolleyes:
- Multi-role 5gen jet is supposed to perform in multi-terrain & climate geography, be it Russia, China, USA. So this objective cannot be different for India/AMCA unless you can precisely highlight & explain properly.
> If you are satisfied with AMCA with just 4 BVR-AAMs & no CCMs then lets pray & wish each other luck.🙏:ROFLMAO:


> Yeah we all know that & that's the biggest problem that our people are not sufficiently realistic. :LOL: We all need to ask ourselves - Why India doesn't have F-22 & F-35 type jets? Why India is not developing NGAD type jet? Perhaps a tattoo on our hands will help.


That's what i said that ADA/NAL always wanted AHCA but neither high thrust engine could be arranged nor GoI cleared funding.
The day 6gen prototype metal cutting will happen in EU & USA will reveal NGAD just like B-21, then our people will get loose motion.:sick::ROFLMAO:



> We are not talking about a tanker or AEW&C jet. A fighter is not meant to just loiter/endure.😴🥱
> Long range also doesn't require top performing engine unless less time requirement is specified.
> What is top performing engine exactly mean for you? Just higher thrust or just fuel-efficient? Engine makers are trying to combine both.
- F-22's F119 engine has lowest SFC of 17.3 gm/KN/s, but F-22 is twin engines & with IWB.​
> Higher endurance/loitering also means less life of engine & airframe, more maintenance, more fuel budget, bad for economics. It is like a joy-ride wasting fuel. In future, CAP will reduce due to more coverage by radar stations, spy-sats & other intel assets.
> If you say that F100 is high performance & F414 is more fuel efficient then F100's dry SFC is 21.52 gm/KN/s & F414's dry SFC is 23 gm/KN/s.
> The idea is to learn from previous jets to design a better jet. Endurance, range, speed, agility are all highly practical end-results which we can only hope for the best till testing prototypes.
> Both engine design & airframe design are so tricky & evolving that there is no perfect formula w.r.t. T/W ratio which can be replicated as desired.
- Engine has multiple parameters like OPR, BPR, EPR, TIT, materials, cooling ways, nozzle design, etc, all of which collectively govern fuel consumption, dry/wet thrust.​
- Airframe's fuselage & wing design, with its lift, drag, # of engines, payload, operating altitude, also collectively govern fuel consumption, speed, range & endurance.​
- IWB makes a 5+gen jet somewhat humpy, bumpy, so it might be adding little drag compared to 4gen with free external space for weapons to hang. Hence there is no point in comparing any 4gen jet like Gripen, LCA, Su-3X, Rafale, Typhoon, etc with any of the 5gen jets bcoz the design priorities are different.
- Higher fuel fraction with compacted other components would be advantage to any kind of aircraft with any priority. It will directly increase T/W ratio but that's just 1 of the factors affecting fuel consumption, speed, range, endurance.
- F-22 was designed in 1980s. F-35 in 1990s hence it will get advantage of better compacted components & more fuel fraction. Hence USA would want to learn how to make NGAD better with speed, range, endurance & by VCE they found a way.​
- But we Indians are not willing to learn & just trying to hide our mistakes & incapability by illogical deviating statements.​


The ultimate point on this thread is to look at future, not drag the past. Su-3X are living their last 2-3 decades & after MLU also they are going to be good target practice for 5+gen jets. That's the fate decided by evolution. Till then Sukhoi lovers can sing & rejoice launching a giant missile like Brahmos. After its retirement we will be forced to use smaller NG variant on all medium jets & customized variants for stealth jet.


Again going in circles. 10-15 years pass quickly. As per simple tech evolution, physics, maths, requirements & components of 5+/6gen jet, a medium jet like 4.5gen Rafale or an insufficient stealth jet like AMCA cannot replace a Flanker bcoz a Flanker class stealth jet is required.


They may not go for common fuselage jet for AF & Navy but the Navy needs a stealth jet which they are delaying & making big mistake. IN TEDBF jets or any 4.5gen jet will get badly beaten.


Thanks for accepting that they are not in same class, nor my vision matches it & hence you need a new different thread to discuss it.


Whatever the latest tech we can put up. I don't like present TEDBF which is identical to Rafale. Our people are habituated to follow footsteps of old jets rather than take a creative leap.😴🥱


That's what you think personally, not me. You are are thinking A-Z new jet while i imagine an inflated MK1 parallel to AMCA in 5-10 years & a new MK2 which can take 10-15 years. 5 year Block is a HUGE time if used sincerely.
Now i have to maintin a count of repeating - If LCA can be inflated to MWF then AMCA MK1 can be inflated to AHCA MK1 in parallel. If AMCA Mk1 prototype can fly before 2030 then its inflated AHCA MK1 TD can easily fly before 2035 with AL-41 if Russia allows or with AL-31.


Computing H/w & S/w MLU is supposed to happen every 5 years roughly just like laptops, desktops, servers get upgraded or "tech refresh". So a F-22 type jet would be upgraded every 5 years & should have 2020+ computers today as per its design requirement.


Again going in circles.🤦‍♂️
> Multi-role Fighter needs to have good TWR to use & outperform when required rather than underperform & die. It is like carrying umbrella, raincoat in rainy season, we don't know when it may rain suddenly, lightly or heavily, for few mins or long time.
> Manual throttling as well as Avionics S/w, FADEC, etc can suggest or control the fuel/thrust/speed as desired.
> I already showed TWR calculations of MKI compared to other jets & the videos are not satisfactory at least to me. An export variant is expected to be inferior to domestic one. IAF or any AF (not even RuAF & USAF) will never accept their weakness publicly.:censored:


Goalpost changing?? 🤦‍♂️You tried to change the entire agenda & focus of my thread by different timeline, different class concept & design vision, what about that????:LOL:

Since 1st intro post I'm crystal clear about my vision of common fuselage DESIGN of AHCA for IAF & IN,
like Rafale, rather than following DOCTRINE of USA to have 2 jets & leaving penetration to 1 of them only bcoz India doesn't have AF, Navy like USAF, USN & nor does it have so many bases around the world. But after 5 pages of calculations, diagrams, pics, points explanation also, your comprehension is poor. Or It seems you don't wan't to understand Evolution, Economics, Ergonomics & school level Physics, Maths also.🤦‍♂️🥱
> Doctrine is different from tech evolution & design requirement. You are mixing the 2 & getting confused.
- Everybody today desires the latest tech jet, 5gen jet at the least, but how they will use them depends on their geography, size of country, their enemy positions, etc.​
- It is like MKI, MKM, MKA, MKK, SM2, etc all are Su-3X variants, their user nations India, Malaysia, Algeria, China, Russia have different size, geography, climate, geopolitics. Still they all purchased the same DESIGN jet but they will have different DOCTRINE, strategy to use them.​
> Last time i'm explaining - nobody is trying to set record for biggest/heaviest fighter jet. It is just evolution of science, with objective to kill the enemy as far located as possible, as many numbers as possible & survive if possible.
- The heavy class fighters like F-22 carries 8 AAMs, Su-57 carries 6 AAMs, J-20 seems to carry 6 AAMs may be 8 in future. The aim is to successfully lock & fire all AAMs if possible.
- The aim of future jets AFAIK would be to carry 10/12/14 AAMs/AGMs of various sizes internally & fire all/most of them
. Smaller AAMs like CUDA/SACM/MSDM & bigger AAMs like JATM are being researched. Smaller, stealthy, customized dimension AGMs are being made.
- F-22 was air superiority fighter but could drop only GPS guided JDAM & SDB, not LGB. F-35 can carry variety of AGMs & AAMs but has limited capacity. If both these factors of weapons capacity & variety can be mixed into 1 jet with stronger engines then that would be true multirole stealth jet. And if it can be made for both AF & Navy in cost effetive way then it is best solution. And that's what my vision of AHCA is.
But medum stealth jets like AMCA, J-31/J-35, KF-21 can never ever achieve this goal of Economics per sortie due to smaller IWB.🤌


So IAF will go for less weapons worsening the economics per sortie & wasting fuel for joy ride???????? What nonsense???? 🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO:
It is not about NGAD, it is just an example. And it is just coincidence that in this era USA is leading.



> I specifically explained WINGMAN UCAV DRONE accompanying a piloted jet.
- A fast supercruising manned fighter is like a Stallion, while current state of UAV/UCAV is like a Donkey. When we ride horses fast then donkeys cannot match that speed, stamina.​
> UAV is generic term, UCAV is Combat UAV, more specifically a Fighter UCAV.
- Other types of drones may have different permutation & combination of payload, avionics, size, etc but i am skeptical if it will work well.​
- A UCAV with weapons but no radar is difficult to imagine. With small radar it will have to be heavily dependent on data link.​
- ISR UAV w/o weapons is not UCAV or Combat UAV. It might turn out to be good target practice.​
- If the manned fighter or radar UAV are taken out then weapons UCAV would be handicapped.​

CAUTION - This is also age of information war. So the advertisements, videos, infographics could be just notional or even misleading. No player wants to show all his cards upfront.

You are the one going around in circles, not me. All I said is AHCA is expected in 2055 so it has to reflect the times.

Anyway, there was no AHCA before AMCA, there was only FGFA, which is now dead. Our plan was always LCA followed by MCA and then an MKI-replacement, which became FGFA. This was when MKI was expected to be replaced from 2025, because its service life was cleared only for 25 years. They increased that to 40 years, so now the retirement date begins in 2055. And now MKI replacement expected in 2055 will have to reflect the times, like what FGFA was supposed to be in 2025. You are claiming the jet in 2055 should be NGAD-equivalent, I'm saying it should be a generation higher than NGAD.

We can develop an NGAD-class jet, but the IN will get it first. With 2 Rafale squadrons, 13 MKI, 11 LCA, 6 Mk2, 6 MRFA, and 7 AMCA, we will be at 45 squadrons in 2045, which is the planned squadron limit of the IAF. Any new jet will require an expansion, and that will go to Mk2, MRFA or AMCA or a combination of the three anyway. The first MKI to be withdrawn from service is expected in 2055, so that's when the MKI-replacement is needed. So 2035 MRFA, 2045 AMCA and 2055 AHCA. This makes the most sense.

As for range vs endurance, a smaller jet like AMCA will beat F-22 in both, so I don't get the point you are making. Both AMCA and F-35 are 5th gen airframes, and both have ranges exceeding the larger F-22. So it's not about size but design and objectives.

MKI may be insufficient in the future, but its inadequacies will be compensated by AMCA and stealth drones. The Americans are doing the same with the F-15EX.

Because of drones there is no need to unnecessarily increase the size of the IWB of a jet when it can be used to carry more fuel and other equipment.

They are planning to make drones more capable than the main fighter jet in terms of range, speed, single-role payload etc. But they plan on saving costs when it comes to sensors, which will go on the main fighter, this will keep the size of the drone small. There will be other drones for comms, tanker and sensors naturally, acting as force multipliers.

===================================================

Anyway, it's possible that the USAF has decreased their requirements for NGAD.
After originally stating this very advanced aircraft that would sit as the centerpiece of the NGAD family of systems would cost roughly three times that of a new F-35 (upwards of $300M plus each), Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall is now eying pursuing a far less expensive aircraft, one that will cost around what a fresh F-35 or F-15EX does, which is very roughly around $90M-$100M apiece.

While the USN is going ahead with a simpler 6th gen design without any capability for air superiority and SEAD/DEAD.

So the USAF and USN seem to be doing exactly what I've been saying. The USAF could curtail NGAD and focus on a 7th gen jet. And the USN will go for a simpler 6th gen jet. Exactly the same as what I've said IAF and IN should do. Interesting, eh?

The reason being we do not need a jet better than AMCA that's limited to 18 km altitude. By 2050, if we modernize AMCA, it will be enough. The IAF needs to jump straight to 7th gen after AMCA for 2055. It's also why Dassault believes Rafale is sufficient until 2050. Drones, baby. You want more range, more payload, bigger sensors, you can make role-specific drones that can operate at higher red lines than manned fighters.

The USAF will apparently study what to do the next 2 years, whether to limit NGAD to $100M or go for the $300M version. And by then it's possible we will see the contours of the first near-space fighter in the form of the Mig-41, this will give us civvies a clue about what 7th gen will start looking like.
 
I think a 6th gen naval jet for the IN will be in the same class as the AMCA or SH, 27-30T MTOW. So it will require an engine in the same class as AMCA, perhaps 125 KN each. So the JV can provide AMCA's engine and an uprated engine with more capabilities for the IN's next gen jet.

What's crucial for the IN is increased range, at least 1000 nmi combat radius, which is at least a 4500+ km basic range. AMCA seems to be in the 700 nmi category, basic range of 3200 km, similar to the Rafale and MKI. F/A-XX will provide the clues necessary for us.

If they take it up in 2035, they could have it operational by 2050, in time for IAC-3.
 
MKI carries around 10tonns fuel internally. Though the plan is for AMCA MK2 to replace the MKI from 2045 onwards, but it only carries 6.5 tonns internal fuel. I just hope it should at least carry few tonns more or maybe a future AHCA(if we go that path) is developed having 12tonns+ internal fuel load.

Combat persistence is a must to degrade the enemy assets in any full-scale war. Drop tanks just don't cut it cause half the fuel is expended because of its extra drag. That's why in my opinion no MCA, no matter how A, will ever replace a HCA. Period.
 
You are the one going around in circles, not me. All I said is AHCA is expected in 2055 so it has to reflect the times.
> Why you said that out of thread's context when this thread is in straight dissatisfaction with GoI/MoD/DoD's progress????
> This thread is not about 2055 timeline
but what i believe can be done starting today, inflated AMCA prototype flying in 2030-35 & IOC in early 2040s. Since 1st intro post i mentioned this, but still you are repeatedly misleading to 2055, that's out of agenda.
if a next gen follow-on can be made by 2040s then it would be great
-The JV program should not focus only on F414 replacement for AMCA, TEDBF, MWF. If we can get a VCE or high thrust engine by self/JV/import by 2040 then AMCA can also be inflated to AHCA MK1, just like Tejas MK1 LCA is getting inflated to Tejas MK2 MWF. AMCA can reamin LSP till 1st squad of AHCA.

EVERYONE IS HOPELESS ABOUT GoI/IAF/DoD DOING SOMETHING IN 2030s/40s
BUT DIFFERENCE B/W MEMBERS LIKE YOU & ME ARE -
- I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ALTERNATE POSSIBLILITIES BUT YOU DONT WANT TO TALK ON IT,
- I THINK AN INTERMEDIATE WORK-AROUND IS POSSIBLE & SENSIBLE BUT YOU THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE & SENSELESS.
- I'M TREATING CASUAL CHAT FORUM FOR EXCHNAGE OF SOME DIFFERENT THOUGHTS, IDEAS, BUT YOU ARE TREATING IT AS OFFICIAL NEWS SOURCE.
- I WANT TO PUSH MY THINKING & PROJECT MY INDEPENDENT THOUGHTS BUT YOU JUST ECHO GoI/IAF/ADA & WANT TO WAIT FOR YEARS TO DECADES, TILL THEN BOTH OF US & THIS WEBSITE WILL BE DEAD.
- I MENTIONED SPECIFIC TIMELINE & GEN BUT YOU WANT TO DEVIATE & MISLEAD INTO DIFFERENT DECADE & GEN.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, there was no AHCA before AMCA, there was only FGFA, which is now dead. Our plan was always LCA followed by MCA and then an MKI-replacement, which became FGFA. This was when MKI was expected to be replaced from 2025, because its service life was cleared only for 25 years. They increased that to 40 years, so now the retirement date begins in 2055. And now MKI replacement expected in 2055 will have to reflect the times, like what FGFA was supposed to be in 2025.
> FGFA acronym reflects generation aspect while LCA, AMCA, AHCA reflect size/weight aspect. That's all.
> Su-57's Indian 2-seat FGFA version is also heavy by weight category.
> After leaving PAKFA project, ADA/NAL should have continued with their own blueprint using AL-41 or AL-31 or F100.

1728034555641.png

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are claiming the jet in 2055 should be NGAD-equivalent, I'm saying it should be a generation higher than NGAD.
The reason being we do not need a jet better than AMCA that's limited to 18 km altitude. By 2050, if we modernize AMCA, it will be enough. The IAF needs to jump straight to 7th gen after AMCA for 2055.
And by then it's possible we will see the contours of the first near-space fighter in the form of the Mig-41, this will give us civvies a clue about what 7th gen will start looking like.
🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
OFF TOPIC, OUT OF COTEXT & AGENDA. STOP PIGGY-BACKING & DERAILING THREADS. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
ARE YOU SCHOOL STUDENT??? WE CAN'T MAKE GLOBAL RANKING CIVILIAN PRODUCTS, YOU EXPECT INDIA TO OVERTAKE U.S.A. MILITARY IN NEXT 30 YEARS ????????!!!!!!!🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️:LOL:o_O:ROFLMAO:😂😝

> 7gen is not defined anywhere yet. Only Youtubers & 3D CAD artists are dreaming that it will be like SR-72 Dark-Star. 😴
NEITHER YOU NOR ANYBODY ANYWHERE has explained
- how big it will be,
- what weapons will it carry & how much,
- how much fuel,
- will there be complications on weapon launch,
- will it be cost effective,
- how many can be built, etc.
> Looking at our pace, politics, funding, supply chain, tech development, etc, when USA itself cannot define & make 7gen in 2050s then how can our economy make?????😵:ROFLMAO:
> To reach HTAV (Hypersonic Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle) like SR-72 type jet, USA has researched, flown manned aircrafts like X-15, XB-70 Valkyrie, SR-71/A-12, Space Shuttle SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit). A HTAV is combination of PRACTICAL learning & some tech from all these past jets. Only flying downscaled unmanned drone is not enough.
- The only high altitude Mach-2+ jet experience we have is MiG-25, that too for recon. We didn't get its follow-on the MiG-31, nor do i think that we 'll ever get the MiG-41 for which you wan't to wait.​
- There is no Supercruise at high altitude bcoz the air is thin. So the SCRamjet is like an Afterburner engine with very high IRS.🔥🔥 BYE BYE IR STEALTH.☠️💀
> You didn't answer me earlier - if we can't manage a medium class Turbofan by self/import/JV ON TIME then how can you dream of NEXT TO NEXT GEN in just 3 decades????😂

We can develop an NGAD-class jet, but the IN will get it first. With 2 Rafale squadrons, 13 MKI, 11 LCA, 6 Mk2, 6 MRFA, and 7 AMCA, we will be at 45 squadrons in 2045, which is the planned squadron limit of the IAF. Any new jet will require an expansion, and that will go to Mk2, MRFA or AMCA or a combination of the three anyway. The first MKI to be withdrawn from service is expected in 2055, so that's when the MKI-replacement is needed. So 2035 MRFA, 2045 AMCA and 2055 AHCA. This makes the most sense.
> This # of squads is a Strategic aspect, not Technical, so i can't comment on how many squads we would need. It needs a huge geopolitics study.
> What is the Tail # of 1st MKI? I think SB02X, last digit IDK. Anyways, if that 1st MKI airframe decides the pace & fate of our future R&D then R.I.P. Engineering, R.I.P ADA/NAL/DRDO. 🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO:

As for range vs endurance, a smaller jet like AMCA will beat F-22 in both, so I don't get the point you are making. Both AMCA and F-35 are 5th gen airframes, and both have ranges exceeding the larger F-22. So it's not about size but design and objectives.
> The point is that all my points in every reply are mentioned point-wise but you still don't get them. So you make me repeat & we both go in circles. :ROFLMAO: 🤦‍♂️
- That's what i also explained it is about design (engine & airframe parameters) & objectives.​
- 1st priority primary design objective of stealth fighter are stealth & firepower/payload which are design inputs,
- but range, endurance are desired design outputs known after practical prototype flight tests.​
- Fossil fuel is precious, so joy ride cannot be afforded on the name of loitering.​
- IT IS POSSIBLE THAT CERTAIN PERFORMANCE SPECS OF F-22 INCLUDING RANGE COULD BE SECRET & PUBLICLY MISPROJECTED.
> So payload & fuel majorly dictate size/weight of fighter jet.
- We are outnumbered by China hence payload is important for us.​
- My idea includes custom AShM, ARM, AGMs, hence it emphasizes payload more.​
- Our country is big so cross-country range is required for us.​
> I'm just exploring a concept of AHCA & this is just the beginning. In the end AHCA can also turn out to give good range & endurance as outcome.

MKI may be insufficient in the future, but its inadequacies will be compensated by AMCA and stealth drones. The Americans are doing the same with the F-15EX.
> CORRECTION - Bcoz of our incapability to arrange a high thrust engine on time, we will be compeled to compensate by AMCA & stealth drones, IF WE CAN MAKE THE DRONES ON TIME, A REAL FIGHTER DRONE.
> I'm not ruling out UCAVs. My vision includes AHCA+UCAVs but it keeps the manned jet fully independent & capable & doesn't offload anything & take risk for pilot.

> USA has good global market for their 4.5gen products hence they can still do lots of things with F-15/16/18 for budget constrained customer countries. But their future spearhead will be 6gen NGAD followed by 5.5gen F-22 + F-35 & then any 4.5gen jet.

Because of drones there is no need to unnecessarily increase the size of the IWB of a jet when it can be used to carry more fuel and other equipment.
> What equipment exactly?
> Replacing cockpit with fuel tank will give roughly 1 ton more fuel. What else?
> A modular fuel tank can also be designed for IWB.

> If drone size is reduced then it can carry only 2-3 AAMs like depicted in advertisements.

1730127297922.png




> Suppose for AA config, if 10-12 custom design AAMs can be carried in 2 tandem IWBs in 1 airframe.

1728049629852.png


> Now if you split them in 4 AAMs x 3 airframes : AMCA + 2 UCAVs, then
# of F414 class engines required = 12. Number of most other parts & spares also 3x.
> Stealthy UCAV can also be discovered & targeted.
So if you give the UCAV only 1 F414 class engine then its agility & dogfighting will be risky. Giving no CCM increases the risk.
> To distribute 150-250 Kg AAMs they want to create 3 airframes 15-20 tons each??? It is like one STOW-32 tons AHCA = 3 jets x 20 tons = 60 tons. 32 tons Vs 60 tons 😵:eek::oops:
Capability/capacity wise 1 AHCA = 3 AMCA. o_O:ROFLMAO:🤦‍♂️

> Currently 4 to 6 fighters fly together. If 4 F-22s with 8 AAMs each are considered = 32 AAMs. Then comparing capacity wise, 8 AMCAs are required, or 2 AMCAs + 6 UCAVs, so ultimately 8 airframes, 16 engines. But only 3 AHCAs with 6 engines will be required.
> For AG config, AMCA's IWB is small to carry custom AShM, ARM. And if you want a UCAV smaller than that & offload the AGMs to it, then it may not be possible to accomodate.
1728142218291.png



They are planning to make drones more capable than the main fighter jet in terms of range, speed, single-role payload etc. But they plan on saving costs when it comes to sensors, which will go on the main fighter, this will keep the size of the drone small. There will be other drones for comms, tanker and sensors naturally, acting as force multipliers.
> I know that since long time. That's their money, opinion & decision, i don't have any problem with that. This thread is about my opinion.
> Private firms always have their own marketing advertisements, & USA has many aero-firms with their own concepts.
> If the UCAV will have offloaded more payload than manned jet but smaller size, then how will it have more range, speed, required fuel?
> The only sensor which can be partially offloaded is radar, meaning less capable radar like you said earlier.
- Rest others like RWR, LWR, MAWS, EW, decoys, etc cannot be omitted.​
- IRST is a small sensor like MAWS & has already become a basic neccesity rather than novelty to be offloaded. In fact R&D is going on multi-function EO sensor providing functions of IRST, MAWS, etc. The F-35 DAS-MAWS is already multi-function.​
- UCAV will require additional RF/EO proximity sensors for formation flying & collision avoidance.​
So this idea of swappable nose could be misleading propagand:
1730214486736.jpeg

> If the manned fighter is taken out somehow then what? The enemy will obviously be hell-bent in destroying the brain of the group. The UCAVs won't have the advantage of far sight.


===================================================
Anyway, it's possible that the USAF has decreased their requirements for NGAD.
While the USN is going ahead with a simpler 6th gen design without any capability for air superiority and SEAD/DEAD.
> BEWARE, with many private firms many options are available & possible. He is just a Netizen speculating on his website based on private firm's marketing advertisement. It is a good website but not USAF, GoUSA site. Numerous websites like it. I checked the video earlier also. But just like we are speculating here, they are speculating there.
> The articles are highly generic with no specs of manned jet or UCAV.
> The video is of Collins Aerospace, other firms might have their own ideas. Let's not forget that many MNCs since last century did blunders & even got sold out. And lie i said above, advertisements are different from contracts.
> The article itself says it is very risky & it takes the distributed sensor concept to the extreme. It also severely limits the aircraft’s applications when CCAs are not in use.
> The article says that F-15EX would remain on outer edge of high-threat areas while 81 tons MTOW B-21 Raider would go in. If people like you can't support 32 ton STOW AHCA then having a B-21 like jet is dream. So when our F-1EX equivalent Super-Su-30 MKI would remain on edge then 1 AHCA could do the job of 3 AMCAs.
> The article mentions payload of manned jet to be same as that of F-22 - 2 AIM-9X + 4 AIM-120/260 + 4 SDBs.
- So it seems that NGAD would be at least as big as F-22, means a Heavy class jet, same as with AHCA concept.


After originally stating this very advanced aircraft that would sit as the centerpiece of the NGAD family of systems would cost roughly three times that of a new F-35 (upwards of $300M plus each), Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall is now eying pursuing a far less expensive aircraft, one that will cost around what a fresh F-35 or F-15EX does, which is very roughly around $90M-$100M apiece.
Let's not forget that USA is a fully capitalist country & we are Socialist mixed economy. We made Mangalyaan in less budget than their Hollywood movies.

So the USAF and USN seem to be doing exactly what I've been saying. The USAF could curtail NGAD and focus on a 7th gen jet. And the USN will go for a simpler 6th gen jet. Exactly the same as what I've said IAF and IN should do. Interesting, eh?
🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
> Before commenting with high excitement, you should understand how economics, corporate/industry works, especially capitalist ones, including misinformation, diversion tactics, etc.
> Every technology has its timeline. If it comes before that or after then it will stall & fail due to many possible reasons like over-budget, far exceeding the requirement to lead, or being late & obsolete, etc.
> The 6gen fighter protoype itself is yet to be revealed. USA has not officially outlined 7gen characteristics. If you have official site about it, please do share.
> Whatever gets developed & inducted next will be considered 6th gen, not 7gen.

It's also why Dassault believes Rafale is sufficient until 2050. Drones, baby. You want more range, more payload, bigger sensors, you can make role-specific drones that can operate at higher red lines than manned fighters.
> They are doing what any jet maker would do - last few MLUs for older gen to work with newer gen. There is always an overlap b/w induction of new gen & retirement of old gen. And i have never negated UCAVs, i have just not spoken about my vision of UCAVs with AHCA yet.
> If you support any future MLUed 4.5gen jet like Rafale, EF-2000, Sukhoi, F-15/16/18 then these jets will pose big threat to drones/UAV/UCAV once discovered.
> IF YOU SUPPORT ANY FUTURE MLUed 4.5GEN JET LIKE RAFALE, EF-2000, F-15/16/18, SUKHOI, THEN THESE JETS WILL POSE THREAT TO ANY 5/6GEN JET & ALSO THE DRONES/UAVs/UCAVs ONCE DISCOVERED.

NOW YOU DECIDE WHICH SIDE YOU WANT TO SUPPORT TO SPEARHEAD BATTLE-

- MLUed 4.5GEN 🙏📿 + DRONE WITH INSUFFICIENT AVIONICS & PAYOAD WHICH CAN'T DOGFIGHT 🤦‍♂️
- FUTURE STEALTHY SURVIVABLE FIGHTER 🏆🦸‍♂️🦸‍♀️🥇

:LOL:(y)🤞


The USAF will apparently study what to do the next 2 years, whether to limit NGAD to $100M or go for the $300M version.
IMO, just like F-15+F-16, F-22+F-35, USA will make 2 6gen jets - 1 high-end with export ban & 1 medium one with export potential.

1730214978404.jpeg


I think a 6th gen naval jet for the IN will be in the same class as the AMCA or SH, 27-30T MTOW. So it will require an engine in the same class as AMCA, perhaps 125 KN each. So the JV can provide AMCA's engine and an uprated engine with more capabilities for the IN's next gen jet.
> REMINDER - This thread is not about what will happen due to mistakes, delays, incapability, bad will-power of GoI/MoD/DoD & private firms.
> IMO, as per characteristics of 6gen + Naval requirement, a MANNED jet can never be medium jet like AMCA or F-18 E/F, but a UCAV can be expected to be in that category. But my vision of UCAV is also focuses on sufficient payload, fuel & hence a stronger engine.
> Naval jet is already slightly heavier than AF version due to stronger LG, bigger wing. So when i'm prioritizing payload then it should be understood that neither smaller airframe of medium jet will suffice, nor 125 KN engine. I've already given preliminary calculation that 175-180 KN engines are required from JV/GTRE.

What's crucial for the IN is increased range, at least 1000 nmi combat radius, which is at least a 4500+ km basic range. AMCA seems to be in the 700 nmi category, basic range of 3200 km, similar to the Rafale and MKI. F/A-XX will provide the clues necessary for us.
> You have been focusing only on range, endurance & neglecting economics of firepower.
> IN jets may need endurance but not range. Neither IN have sufficient carriers, nor requirement to go far from nation. It is highly unlikely that our present carriers will travel out of Arabian Sea & Bay of Bengal. Travelling from Maharashtra state coast to Pakistan's coast is not far.
Hence IN jets will have to be in defensive role to guarg the shores.
> But still if you want a stealthy TEDBF 2.0 to have range (with sufficient internal payload) then a medium size airframe will not suffice.
> Srinagar to Kanyakumari distance is 2,900 Kms. For heavy class fighters with internal fuel: MKI & Su-33 are quoted 3,000 Km range at high altitude. Su-57 is quoted 3,500 Km. Su-35 is quoted 3,600 Km. Expecting a future stealth naval jet with sufficient internal fuel & payload to have 4,500+ Km range IDK if it is possible, even for the F/A-XX with 200+/- KN class engines.
> Rafale-C carries just 4.7 tons fuel & needs external tanks for considerable range, hence not comparable with heavy class jets. There is no point in talking about medium &/or 4gen jets here.
> AMCA's range is quoted 3,250 Km but it seems there won't be any Naval AMCA. Moreove AMCA cannot carry naval strike AGMs, AShMs, ARMs in stealth mode. Hence AHCA is the answer.

If they take it up in 2035, they could have it operational by 2050, in time for IAC-3.
This is 2024, about to get over in 2 months & you are talking about SLEEPING for a decade & starting next gen IN jet after 11 years rather than a.s.a.p. 🥱:sleep:🛌💤 Best of luck to our GoI/MoD/DoD (y)🤞🙏:LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion