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

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

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.

Yes that's what i have tried to explain but some spokesperson/PRO type members refuse to understand tech aspects even after showing diagrams, calculations that it is fuel capacity & payload which increases the size/weight & a stealth jet, manned or unmanned, has to be designed as per the 1st stealthy strike with sufficient IWB capacity, especially when our assets are heavily outnumbered.
The partial mistakes with F-22, F-35, J-20 should not be repeated. Otherwise what will a stealth fighter do flying a marathon wasting fuel w/o sufficient payload & also after limited payload is depleted.

 

[randomradio]

> 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.



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.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

View attachment 36728
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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 ????????!!!!!!!
> 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?????
> 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????


> 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.


> 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.

- 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.


> 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.


> 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.

View attachment 37508



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

View attachment 36734

> 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
Capability/capacity wise 1 AHCA = 3 AMCA.
> 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.
View attachment 36864



> 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:​

​

View attachment 37527​

> 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.




> 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.



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.



> 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.


> 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



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.

View attachment 37529


> 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.


> 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.


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. Best of luck to our GoI/MoD/DoD

Whoa, you seem to have spent a lot of time coloring your posts. You should have taken a bit more time understanding what I said.

Light, medium, heavy concepts are dead. It's all about specific characteristics now. A light/medium airframe can have as much range or more range than a heavy aircraft. For example, 12T AMCA has more range than 20T F-22. At the same time, 9.5T Rafale can supercruise relative to 18.5T MKI. Payload is relative to what you want out of the jet. If AMCA is converted to a strike version, it can carry more payload than MKI. So the design and related mission requirements are much more important than weight. It's why 16T F-15EX can carry 30% more than the 20T F-22. It's why 9.5T Rafale can carry 9.5T payload, but 12T AMCA can carry only 6.5T. Similarly, 8T LCA Mk2 will carry 6.5T too.

7th jet with ramjet/scramjet + turbojet/turbofan will have both top speed and cruise speed. At cruise speed and very high altitude, the IRST risk is much lower than traditional jets due to the lower air density.

It's because of AMCA that we can't have a 6th gen program in parallel. A new program can be started only after AMCA is in the IOC/FOC stage. So that's anytime after 2035. Now, if you are expecting ADA will abandon AMCA for a new 6th gen design, that's just laughable, that's not how R&D works. Only after one program is stalled or finished can another begin. It's the same for the Americans and Chinese.

The concept for 7th gen is simple, really. USAF and PLAAF began 6th gen development after 2015, so they will get a jet in the 2030s. Then they will begin the development of a 7th gen jet between 2035-40 for induction in the 2050s. We are not even participating in the first race, so we have to match the second, or we end up a generation behind them. That's why the IAF has to skip 6th gen.

Drones are meant to have both survivable and expendable versions. Survivable versions will replace 4th, 5th and 6th gen jets entirely, that's why there's no need for a 6th gen jet after AMCA. It's also why the USAF is currently debating whether they need to pursue the more expensive NGAD design or go for a cheap version because drones are expected to surpass the NGAD in 10 years. Expendable versions will require limited payload, but manned-platform equivalent range, limited to no avionics. By the way, Air Force Secretary Kendall isn't a netizen. He's in charge of the NGAD program. And if he says NGAD may go back to the drawing board, then that's the current reality.

The decision for a $300M NGAD or $100M NGAD will happen in a few months. Would recommend reading the article.

NGAD Review to Finish Before End of Year, Allvin Says

The panel determining the fate of the Air Force’s future manned fighter (NGAD) will provide its recommendations by the end of 2024.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Anyway, if you wanna discuss 6th gen tech, go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. As per you, IAF will get an NGAD or FCAS-equivalent development program in parallel with AMCA. As per me, it's unlikely because AMCA will give us everything we want, the rest will be handled by both survivable and expendable drones. That's the only difference. The basic technologies, engines, avionics, materials, weapons etc, for both concepts are the same anyway. It doesn't actually change the discussion. I just think our 6th gen will be based on a much larger version of Ghatak, similar to S-70, supported by all our manned jets. They can develop that in just 5 or 6 years with AMCA's engine.

 

[randomradio]

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.

That's not how you look at things.

AMCA may carry less fuel, but it will outrange the MKI quite comfortably even with the standard F414. AMCA's fuel fraction is already higher at 0.35 vs MKI's 0.34. Plus AMCA will have a better airframe design with more lift, less drag and significantly more fuel efficient engines. While carrying payload, even just AAMs, the MKI's range will decrease even more, while AMCA's will be largely unaffected. We could easily see a 15% higher range.

AMCA with definitive engines could see a much more significant increase, especially if it comes with some form of bypass enhancement at cruise.

Based on currently revealed specs, AMCA with F414 already exceeds MKI.

LCA Mk2 itself falls just a few hundred kms short of the MKI even with a significantly lower fuel fraction of 0.3. A centerline fuel tank is enough to help match the MKI.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Whoa, you seem to have spent a lot of time coloring your posts. You should have taken a bit more time understanding what I said.

And you seem to have spent very less time & again going off context & in circles.
While actually at least i took 1 month to -
- enjoy the festivals.
- understand you reply.
- again revise videos & articles on CCA/drones, i took new screenshots.
- modify & re-draft my reply many times.
But you are making people understand things out of this thread's context even after telling you straight many times, that's the problem.

Light, medium, heavy concepts are dead. It's all about specific characteristics now. A light/medium airframe can have as much range or more range than a heavy aircraft. For example, 12T AMCA has more range than 20T F-22. At the same time, 9.5T Rafale can supercruise relative to 18.5T MKI. Payload is relative to what you want out of the jet. If AMCA is converted to a strike version, it can carry more payload than MKI. So the design and related mission requirements are much more important than weight. It's why 16T F-15EX can carry 30% more than the 20T F-22. It's why 9.5T Rafale can carry 9.5T payload, but 12T AMCA can carry only 6.5T. Similarly, 8T LCA Mk2 will carry 6.5T too.

ARE YOU DISORIENTED? Why AGAIN you explaining all this WHEN I MYSELF MENTIONED AIRFRAME & ENGINE PARAMETERS?
> WHY COMPARING STEALTH JET CONCEPT TO OLDER 4GEN JETS?
> YOU LOVE MKI TYPE 4GEN HEAVY JET BUT DEADLY AGAINST STEALTH HEAVY CLASS JET....... WHY?????
I'm again attaching the 1st pic from 1st post to remind you that my vision prioritises 8+ AAMs, custom AGMs INTERNALLY:
AIR TO AIR MODE > 8 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs ALL INTERNAL
MIXED MODE > 4 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs + (2 custom AShMs or ARMs) ALL INTERNAL

> i'm not against range but why talking about only range, range, range, when i told you that it is a desired practical output, not design input.

- AMCA HAS NOT FLOWN YET. JUST BCOZ IT MAY HAVE GOOD RANGE SO A BETTER FUTURE JET SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED - IS THIS YOUR LOGIC? AMCA CANNOT CARRY MORE THAN 4 AAMs NOR CUSTOM AShM, ARM, INTERNALLY, HENCE IT MAY HAVE GOOD RANGE. BUT IF WE INCREASE ITS INTERNAL PAYLOAD SOMEHOW THEN ITS RANGE WILL DECREASE.​

- A Drone or even a Tomahawk like cruise missile can fly 2,500+/- Kms but it doesn't mean to take focus off a design of high capacity future stealth fighter jet????​

> Ofcourse "design and related mission requirements are much more important than weight". My vision of a future jet's design & mission requirement considers more internal weapons & fuel than F-22, which i depicted by modified diagram of F-22 & Su-57, so obviously it will be in heavy category. But you are reflexively allergic to heavy class stealth jet, although you love MKI type 4gen heavy jet.

EITHER YOU DON'T WAN'T OUR COUNTRY TO HAVE SOMETHING BETTER EVEN IF IT HAS POTENTIAL, OR YOU ARE JUSTIFYING MISTAKES OF GoI/MoD/DoD, TRYING TO DIVERT PUBLIC FOCUS OFF.

7th jet with ramjet/scramjet + turbojet/turbofan will have both top speed and cruise speed. At cruise speed and very high altitude, the IRST risk is much lower than traditional jets due to the lower air density.

WHY AGAIN & AGAIN DISCUSSING 7GEN HERE?
In short, at high altitude low density the radiation scattering & refraction will be less so the IRST can see farther.

It's because of AMCA that we can't have a 6th gen program in parallel. A new program can be started only after AMCA is in the IOC/FOC stage. So that's anytime after 2035. Now, if you are expecting ADA will abandon AMCA for a new 6th gen design, that's just laughable, that's not how R&D works. Only after one program is stalled or finished can another begin.

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID TO COMPLETELY ABANDON AMCA.
I SAID TO EVOLVE AMCA, USE IT AS A TECH DEMONSTRATOR, INFLATE IT AS AHCA MK1 & WORK ON AHCA MK2 IN PARALLEL. IF LCA CAN BE INFLATED TO MWF THEN AMCA MK1 CAN BE INFLATED TO AHCA MK1. AFTER IOC OF AHCA MK1 THE AMCA PRODUCTION CAN BE STOPPED.

W.r.t. AHCA, i can't expect NAL, ADA to be like LM, NG. Hence at 1st i imagined AHCA to be AMCA inflated to something like a Naval F-22 with a good JV engine.

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.
Tejas MK1 = LCA
Tejas Mk2 = MWF with no naval variant due to 1 engine, hence TEDBF.
XXXXX MK1 = AMCA LSP
XXXXX MK2 = AHCA MK1 with naval variant TEDBF 2.0

If EU can dump 5gen & we are ready to use present engines by Russia or USA then AHCA can be prototyped along with AMCA till new engines are made for both. It is like diff. b/w F-18 class to F-15 class. If AHCA can be made then AMCA can be exported like reduced version of AHCA. Russia & China cannot match Western standards yet, but they don't sacrifice their R&D with whatever they have. Otherwise we re looking at HMRCA tenders.

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.

> 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.

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.

> You are talking about AFTER AMCA, i'm talking about parallel to AMCA with it being LSP.

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the same for the Americans and Chinese.

See what i said & what is actual history so far.

> 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.

THAT'S NINE INSTANCES FOR YOU WHERE I SAID TO CONTINUE AMCA TILL ITS INFLATED AHCA MK1 CAN HAVE IOC.
SO EVIDENTLY YOU ARE WRONGLY ACCUSING ME & ALSO PROVING YOUR IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE, IMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR & BAD COMPREHESION POWER, NOW THAT'S LAUGHABLE.


=========================================================================================
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The concept for 7th gen is simple, really.

> 1ST SHOW US COMPLETE OUTLINE OF ALL ASPECTS OF 7GEN, NOT JUST ENGINE.
> HAVE COMMON SENSE TO DISCUSS 7GEN IN ITS OWN THREAD.

USAF and PLAAF began 6th gen development after 2015, so they will get a jet in the 2030s. Then they will begin the development of a 7th gen jet between 2035-40 for induction in the 2050s. We are not even participating in the first race, so we have to match the second, or we end up a generation behind them. That's why the IAF has to skip 6th gen.

> BY YOUR LOGIC IF AHCA CANNOT BEGIN BEFORE AMCA THEN HOW CAN WE SKIP 6GEN FOR AN UNDEFINED 7GEN????

Drones are meant to have both survivable and expendable versions. Survivable versions will replace 4th, 5th and 6th gen jets entirely, that's why there's no need for a 6th gen jet after AMCA. It's also why the USAF is currently debating whether they need to pursue the more expensive NGAD design or go for a cheap version because drones are expected to surpass the NGAD in 10 years. Expendable versions will require limited payload, but manned-platform equivalent range, limited to no avionics. By the way, Air Force Secretary Kendall isn't a netizen. He's in charge of the NGAD program. And if he says NGAD may go back to the drawing board, then that's the current reality.
The decision for a $300M NGAD or $100M NGAD will happen in a few months. Would recommend reading the article.

NGAD Review to Finish Before End of Year, Allvin Says

The panel determining the fate of the Air Force’s future manned fighter (NGAD) will provide its recommendations by the end of 2024.

www.airandspaceforces.com

> WHETHER HE IS A NETIZEN OR CITIZEN, I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY VIEWS, OPINIONS, IDEAS ON A CASUAL CHAT FORUM.
> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WHAT USA, EU, RUSSIA, CHINA WILL DO.
> HOW MANY TIMES WILL I SAY THAT WESTERN NATIONS ARE CAPITALIST & WE ARE SOCIALIST MIXED ECONOMY????
> 6GEN IS INTERMEDIATE STEP OF MUM-T. ONLY AFTER THAT UCAVs CAN MOSTLY OR COMPLETELY REPLACE MANNED JETS.
> I'M NOT AT ALL AGAINST UCAVS BUT OUR UCAV PROGRAM PROGRESS IS PATHETIC. EVEN USA'S UCAVs HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE MANY CRITICAL THINGS YET LIKE FORMATION FLYING.

Anyway, if you wanna discuss 6th gen tech, go right ahead, I'm not stopping you. As per you, IAF will get an NGAD or FCAS-equivalent development program in parallel with AMCA. As per me, it's unlikely because AMCA will give us everything we want, the rest will be handled by both survivable and expendable drones. That's the only difference. The basic technologies, engines, avionics, materials, weapons etc, for both concepts are the same anyway. It doesn't actually change the discussion.

> YOU ARE ARROGANTLY IGNORING THAT AMCA CANNOT INTERNALLY CARRY 4+ AAMs & CUSTOM AShMs, ARMs. And if you make UCAVs smaller then they can't carry either as i showed CGI screenshots.
> But yes AMCA can be modified into UCAV with 6 AAMs minimum.

I just think our 6th gen will be based on a much larger version of Ghatak, similar to S-70, supported by all our manned jets. They can develop that in just 5 or 6 years with AMCA's engine.

> OUR 6GEN LIKE S-70 WITH ONE F414 CLASS ENGINE?????????????????

 

[Rajput Lion]

That's not how you look at things.

AMCA may carry less fuel, but it will outrange the MKI quite comfortably even with the standard F414. AMCA's fuel fraction is already higher at 0.35 vs MKI's 0.34. Plus AMCA will have a better airframe design with more lift, less drag and significantly more fuel efficient engines. While carrying payload, even just AAMs, the MKI's range will decrease even more, while AMCA's will be largely unaffected. We could easily see a 15% higher range.

AMCA with definitive engines could see a much more significant increase, especially if it comes with some form of bypass enhancement at cruise.

Based on currently revealed specs, AMCA with F414 already exceeds MKI.

LCA Mk2 itself falls just a few hundred kms short of the MKI even with a significantly lower fuel fraction of 0.3. A centerline fuel tank is enough to help match the MKI.

No light or medium category plane of today(except F-35) can match MKI's combat radius just on internal fuel.

Next gen medium jets like AMCA reaching MKI's range/combat persistence is good, but I was actually talking in relative terms. An AHCA with 12ton internal fuel will have twice the range/combat persistence of AMCA. In future warfare that'll be quite important especially to take the fight deep into the Chinese mainland.

 

[randomradio]

And you seem to have spent very less time & again going off context & in circles.
While actually at least i took 1 month to -
- enjoy the festivals.
- understand you reply.
- again revise videos & articles on CCA/drones, i took new screenshots.
- modify & re-draft my reply many times.
But you are making people understand things out of this thread's context even after telling you straight many times, that's the problem.

Mate, you have 150 posts on this forum, I have over 20000. I've done all this, except you have definitely outdone me in terms of coloring posts.

ARE YOU DISORIENTED? Why AGAIN you explaining all this WHEN I MYSELF MENTIONED AIRFRAME & ENGINE PARAMETERS?
> WHY COMPARING STEALTH JET CONCEPT TO OLDER 4GEN JETS?
> YOU LOVE MKI TYPE 4GEN HEAVY JET BUT DEADLY AGAINST STEALTH HEAVY CLASS JET....... WHY?????
I'm again attaching the 1st pic from 1st post to remind you that my vision prioritises 8+ AAMs, custom AGMs INTERNALLY:
AIR TO AIR MODE > 8 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs ALL INTERNAL
MIXED MODE > 4 BVRAAMs + 4 CCMs + (2 custom AShMs or ARMs) ALL INTERNAL
View attachment 37676

That many AAMs may not be of any use. There are physical and psychological restrictions to how and where you use AAMs.

The standard AAM loadout for any mission is 4+2 for air superiority missions or 2+2 for interception and strike. Even going for 6+2 is rare.

> i'm not against range but why talking about only range, range, range, when i told you that it is a desired practical output, not design input.

- AMCA HAS NOT FLOWN YET. JUST BCOZ IT MAY HAVE GOOD RANGE SO A BETTER FUTURE JET SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED - IS THIS YOUR LOGIC? AMCA CANNOT CARRY MORE THAN 4 AAMs NOR CUSTOM AShM, ARM, INTERNALLY, HENCE IT MAY HAVE GOOD RANGE. BUT IF WE INCREASE ITS INTERNAL PAYLOAD SOMEHOW THEN ITS RANGE WILL DECREASE.​

- A Drone or even a Tomahawk like cruise missile can fly 2,500+/- Kms but it doesn't mean to take focus off a design of high capacity future stealth fighter jet????​

> Ofcourse "design and related mission requirements are much more important than weight". My vision of a future jet's design & mission requirement considers more internal weapons & fuel than F-22, which i depicted by modified diagram of F-22 & Su-57, so obviously it will be in heavy category. But you are reflexively allergic to heavy class stealth jet, although you love MKI type 4gen heavy jet.

Building a much better jet than AMCA is my proposition.

EITHER YOU DON'T WAN'T OUR COUNTRY TO HAVE SOMETHING BETTER EVEN IF IT HAS POTENTIAL, OR YOU ARE JUSTIFYING MISTAKES OF GoI/MoD/DoD, TRYING TO DIVERT PUBLIC FOCUS OFF.

Isn't my saying we need a jet that's a generation ahead of NGAD support that view?

WHY AGAIN & AGAIN DISCUSSING 7GEN HERE?
In short, at high altitude low density the radiation scattering & refraction will be less so the IRST can see farther.

Those decrease false positives for the IRST, but the stratospheric jet's signature is also much lower than a jet cruising at 15 km, never mind 8 km due to lower air friction.

SHOW ME WHERE I SAID TO COMPLETELY ABANDON AMCA.

To have a 6th gen program, AMCA has to be abandoned, completely. I'm not saying you said it, I'm saying the govt will have to cancel AMCA and start an NGAD-equivalent, which is why it's not possible. We do not have the capability today anyway.

I SAID TO EVOLVE AMCA, USE IT AS A TECH DEMONSTRATOR, INFLATE IT AS AHCA MK1 & WORK ON AHCA MK2 IN PARALLEL. IF LCA CAN BE INFLATED TO MWF THEN AMCA MK1 CAN BE INFLATED TO AHCA MK1. AFTER IOC OF AHCA MK1 THE AMCA PRODUCTION CAN BE STOPPED.

Sure. But that eliminates the need for an NGAD-equivalent.

THAT'S NINE INSTANCES FOR YOU WHERE I SAID TO CONTINUE AMCA TILL ITS INFLATED AHCA MK1 CAN HAVE IOC.
SO EVIDENTLY YOU ARE WRONGLY ACCUSING ME & ALSO PROVING YOUR IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE, IMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR & BAD COMPREHESION POWER, NOW THAT'S LAUGHABLE.

- 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.

That's where you have been going wrong. Our equivalent for your analogy is AMCA and LCA Mk2.

You have to compare "primary" air superiority fighters.

The correct analogy is:
F-22 waited for F-15.
Su-57 waited for Su-27.
J-XX waited for J-20.

So F-35 waited for F-16. And Su-75 waited for Mig-29. Not primary air superiority fighters.

So AMCA didn't wait for LCA Mk2. But AHCA has to wait for AMCA.

AMCA is the IAF's main air superiority fighter. Its replacement will happen in 2080+.

> 1ST SHOW US COMPLETE OUTLINE OF ALL ASPECTS OF 7GEN, NOT JUST ENGINE.
> HAVE COMMON SENSE TO DISCUSS 7GEN IN ITS OWN THREAD.

> BY YOUR LOGIC IF AHCA CANNOT BEGIN BEFORE AMCA THEN HOW CAN WE SKIP 6GEN FOR AN UNDEFINED 7GEN????

7th gen will be defined by 2040, ie after AMCA is operational.

In 5 more years, Western and Chinese 6th gen will be operational. So 15 years should be enough to define 7th gen. After all, F-22 started development 10 years after F-15 was operational. So 7th gen work should start by 2040-45 in the US, 10 years after NGAD is operational.

> WHETHER HE IS A NETIZEN OR CITIZEN, I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY VIEWS, OPINIONS, IDEAS ON A CASUAL CHAT FORUM.
> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WHAT USA, EU, RUSSIA, CHINA WILL DO.
> HOW MANY TIMES WILL I SAY THAT WESTERN NATIONS ARE CAPITALIST & WE ARE SOCIALIST MIXED ECONOMY????
> 6GEN IS INTERMEDIATE STEP OF MUM-T. ONLY AFTER THAT UCAVs CAN MOSTLY OR COMPLETELY REPLACE MANNED JETS.
> I'M NOT AT ALL AGAINST UCAVS BUT OUR UCAV PROGRAM PROGRESS IS PATHETIC. EVEN USA'S UCAVs HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE MANY CRITICAL THINGS YET LIKE FORMATION FLYING.

Okay, let's ignore the US for the sake of discussion. Russia is a socialist-mixed economy too, and their 6th gen jet is a UCAV.

Su-57 is 5th gen. S-70 + derivatives are 6th gen. Mig-41 is 7th gen, at least by the definition we are going by, ie, hybrid engine.

> OUR 6GEN LIKE S-70 WITH ONE F414 CLASS ENGINE?????????????????

Why not 2 of AMCA's 110 KN engines?

Imagine a much smaller version of the B-21, with 4T internal payload and 2 engines. This can be a strike version of 6th gen. With AMCA supporting it, why would we need a manned 6th gen?

Anyway, I posted this elsewhere, but I have bad news for you. Ever since AMCA turned from a semi-stealth fighter powered by F414 into a fully stealth fighter with a new 110 KN engine, the IAF canceled their planned 6th gen program that was supposed to start after FGFA, ie, 2025+. Now their goal is to develop AMCA and depend on it and then work on a new jet after AMCA. And naturally, this jet will cater to that time period, ie, 2040-2060.

So AMCA changed from a 20T to a 27T version. This led to an increase in length, fuel load to 6.5T and thrust to 110 KN, from the earlier 4T fuel and 98 KN thrust. It was originally a replacement for Jaguar, while FGFA was the primary air superiority fighter to begin induction between 2020 and 2025.

So your dream of a 6th gen fighter, to be developed between 2025-2040, died a decade ago.

Going back to your analogy; F-22 waited for F-15, NGAD waited for F-22 etc, I will explain how our program will be implemented. After ADA finishes work on AMCA, let's say when the jet enters LSP, or progresses a bit more, ADA will seriously start conceptualizing a next gen aircraft. This aircraft will naturally be more sophisticated and advanced than NGAD, SCAF etc, which will be flying or operational by then. So we are in 2030-35 by then. Let's assume that ADA will finish conceptualization of the next gen jet when AMCA will achieve IOC. Then ADA will submit their proposal to the IAF, based on which IAF will create next gen requirements.

These next gen requirements will be sent to the govt for processing, which they will take up when AMCA enters production formally. The govt will then approve ADA's program and they will start preliminary design stage and send the design to the IAF for approval. If the IAF agrees, then a new program will start. This process will take roughly 10 years to finish after AMCA's IOC stage. So if IOC is achieved in 2035, a new gen program will formally begin in 2045. In 5 or 6 years this jet will also enter LSP, once it achieves IOC, ADA will push for a new program. This is how the system works. In the meantime, they will build some more AMCAs to keep the production line busy.

So now you can see why AMCA and your 6th gen AHCA cannot run in parallel. It defeats the purpose. It's like buying 2 flagship smartphones at the same time when you have just 1 phone number. There can only be 1 primary ASF at a time. Similarly, only 1 light fighter or 1 strike fighter or 1 stealth bomber.

 

[randomradio]

No light or medium category plane of today(except F-35) can match MKI's combat radius just on internal fuel.

That's fine theoretically. But operationally, it won't matter due to the standard use of drop tanks.

Next gen medium jets like AMCA reaching MKI's range/combat persistence is good, but I was actually talking in relative terms. An AHCA with 12ton internal fuel will have twice the range/combat persistence of AMCA. In future warfare that'll be quite important especially to take the fight deep into the Chinese mainland.

We don't need range, we need endurance. All the targets we want to hit in China are less than 1500 km away, with majority of them less than 500 km away.

For MKI to be as useful as Rafale for DPS, it needs drop tanks. Without it, MKI will be restricted to 500 km while Rafale can be used up to 1000 km.

And for the sake of 12T fuel, if we develop AHCA parallely to AMCA, then we are just wasting money to gain a capability that will rarely be used. That's why any AHCA will be developed for the distant future. And sure, it can have 12T fuel or even 15T or even 20T. Who knows?

 

[Rajput Lion]

That's fine theoretically. But operationally, it won't matter due to the standard use of drop tanks.

Don't forget about AAR. MKI's range is huge with that.

We don't need range, we need endurance. All the targets we want to hit in China are less than 1500 km away, with majority of them less than 500 km away.

And a heavy-weight fighter has exactly that. MKI can stay on afterburners(read supersonic) at high altitudes for more than an hour. That is endurance and combat persistence. A supercruising Rafale, even with drop tanks, won't have similar range/endurance.

For MKI to be as useful as Rafale for DPS, it needs drop tanks. Without it, MKI will be restricted to 500 km while Rafale can be used up to 1000 km.

With AAR, MKI will do the job.

And for the sake of 12T fuel, if we develop AHCA parallely to AMCA, then we are just wasting money to gain a capability that will rarely be used. That's why any AHCA will be developed for the distant future. And sure, it can have 12T fuel or even 15T or even 20T. Who knows?

There is no AHCA parallely developed with AMCA. It's a learning curve from MK1/2/AMCA to AHCA.

Anyways, even USAF is re-considering their NGAD program. So we've time on our side to decide what kind of AHCA we want to develop for future air combat. Let's wait.

 

[HariPrasad]

When a medium weight fighter like Rafale can carry more payload than Su 30 MKI, what is the need of heavy combat aircraft? We should turn ORCA into a replacement of SU 30 MKI. It can carry more payload than Su 30 MKI and do everything which Su30 MKI can do and lot more. There is a need to ditch this concept of Heavy combat aircraft. It will be a lengthy process of developing new engine, new design etc. We can reconfigure ORCA to meet all mission requirements of SU30 MKI. We are planning a 75/110 KN engine. We can use this engine and can easily build a plane which can carry 9 to 10 ton Payload. With the advancement of technology, our weapons are getting compact. e.g. Brahmos NG. Our new plane will not require to carry heavy weapons like BRAHMOS. It will be a good idea to turn ORCA into a plane which can perform heavy aircraft mission. It should be a multi role fighter with air superiority and force intrusion capability.

 

[Rajput Lion]

When a medium weight fighter like Rafale can carry more payload than Su 30 MKI, what is the need of heavy combat aircraft? We should turn ORCA into a replacement of SU 30 MKI. It can carry more payload than Su 30 MKI and do everything which Su30 MKI can do and lot more. There is a need to ditch this concept of Heavy combat aircraft. It will be a lengthy process of developing new engine, new design etc. We can reconfigure ORCA to meet all mission requirements of SU30 MKI. We are planning a 75/110 KN engine. We can use this engine and can easily build a plane which can carry 9 to 10 ton Payload. With the advancement of technology, our weapons are getting compact. e.g. Brahmos NG. Our new plane will not require to carry heavy weapons like BRAHMOS. It will be a good idea to turn ORCA into a plane which can perform heavy aircraft mission. It should be a multi role fighter with air superiority and force intrusion capability.

MKI can carry more payload at more distance plus its ability to fire BrahMos A is uncanny for any other IAF jet. F-35 can't replace F-22, J-31 can't replace J-20, Su-75 can't replace Su-57; similarly Rafale/Mig-29/M-2000/MK2/TEDBF none can match or replace MKI.

Just think which other "Medium" category jet in our current/future inventory can carry a massive 2400 TRM GaN radar. That in itself is game-changing.

In the end, light, medium or heavy all substitute each other and not replace. Rafale can do things MKI can only dream of and also vice-versa.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Mate, you have 150 posts on this forum, I have over 20000. I've done all this,

OOOOMMMMGGGGGG!!!!! If i do 3 replies/day or 1,000 replies/year then it will take me 20 years to reach your reply count. You must have written thesis & completed PhD by now. Are you doing something at CAPS (Center for Air Power Studies), etc??
> I'm following military tech since my school days in 1990s. Is that sufficient for this chat forum & discuss with you?
> BTW, I'm a low IQ average IT engineer/SME/Trainer/TL, is that sufficient? MAY I KNOW YOUR QUALIFICATION & EXPERIENCE?
> We see that you spend way too much time on various threads throughout the day. May be you are retired, a dropout student or unemployed,
On this THREAD itself so far we can see your :
- Diagram count = ??
- Picture count = ??
- Calculation count = ??

except you have definitely outdone me in terms of coloring posts.

> The website gives facility to change font size, color, etc to better format replies, that's very good, especially for members/visitor with less time who can see the COLORED/BOLD/CAPITALIZED HIGHLIGHTS.
> And after that also you don't get my points.

That many AAMs may not be of any use.

So Sukhoi & F-15 carrying 12-14 AAMs are not of any use, CORRECT? Then why you have been gloryfying these jets?
You seem to be supremely overconfident on Pk of our AAMs & the enemy's jamming & countermeasures would be useless.

There are physical and psychological restrictions to how and where you use AAMs.

Please elaborate on physical restriction. Do you mean structural limits?
And what is psychological restriction?

The standard AAM loadout for any mission is 4+2 for air superiority missions or 2+2 for interception and strike. Even going for 6+2 is rare.

STANDARD?
Who defined that standard? ISO? USA? NATO?
How did they arrive on such numbers?
What is the standard for 4gen jets w/o IWB & 5gen, 6gen jets with IWB?
Have all nations signed any treaty like MTCR to comply to such limits?

Building a much better jet than AMCA is my proposition.

> So is my proposition & this is just the start, but you don't have patience.
IDK 3D CAD S/w like Blender, etc otherwise i could show what's on my mind & it would be perhaps more agreeable then.
> I don't have any problem with anybody's disagreement. But when someone talks out of context w.r.t. timeline, technology, generation then that person has nothing to contribute even an alternative & hence is in wrong thread wasting self's & everybody's time.

Isn't my saying we need a jet that's a generation ahead of NGAD support that view?

Not in context of this thread & within 10-20 years. Multiple times i requested you to open your own thread, which i will happily support, but after 20,000 replies also you are severely underconfident to do it. Should i open a thread for you?

Those decrease false positives for the IRST, but the stratospheric jet's signature is also much lower than a jet cruising at 15 km, never mind 8 km due to lower air friction.

I won't reply out of this thread's context even if i have data. Open a new thread.

To have a 6th gen program, AMCA has to be abandoned, completely. I'm not saying you said it, I'm saying the govt will have to cancel AMCA and start an NGAD-equivalent, which is why it's not possible.

> That's your individual pesimistic thinking & a dead-end for you, but not for me. I showed the approach also that we can have few squads of AMCA MK1 like LCA MK1, no need to cancel it. It can be tuned into UCAV also. I also showed that other countries heavy & medium jets didn't have inter-dependencies, that's evident enough to counter your thinking.
> If GoI/MoD/ADA don't wan't to expand teams & facilities & make current employees work like horses, bulls, donkeys then certainly situation is hopeless & our country will pay heavy price if a big war breaks out suddenly.

We do not have the capability today anyway.

> WHAT CAPABILITY? Our country is most populous now & even small cities have technical colleges pumping out graduates & post-grads increasing unemployment. This is opportunity for industry to absorb them. There are so many IITs, NITs, A grade colleges. The govt. & private firms need to take action.
> Small countries like France, Japan, S.Korea, etc can make engines, jets, subs, tanks, bullet trains, etc. Learn from them.
But all we do is..... we can't do this... we can't do that... this is not possible.... that is not possible.

Sure. But that eliminates the need for an NGAD-equivalent.

Again that's your thinking. I'm thinking from what can be acted & started today to match the evolution of technology.

That's where you have been going wrong. Our equivalent for your analogy is AMCA and LCA Mk2.
You have to compare "primary" air superiority fighters.
The correct analogy is:
F-22 waited for F-15.
Su-57 waited for Su-27.
J-XX waited for J-20.
So F-35 waited for F-16. And Su-75 waited for Mig-29. Not primary air superiority fighters.
So AMCA didn't wait for LCA Mk2. But AHCA has to wait for AMCA.
AMCA is the IAF's main air superiority fighter. Its replacement will happen in 2080+.

> That's correct analogy but the common pattern to notice is evolution of technology with time & the technical requirements. So i'm not wrong.
> And tht analogy works bcoz engine is dictating other aspects & USA, Russia, EU & now China have their own engines hence they can make whatever they want. But we are compelled, constrained by engine. Tomorrow if future USA regime pulls F414 engine then AMCA, TEDBF, MWF will be massively delayed till we import from Russia or make something from JV.
> I also told you that AMCA is the actual Stop-gap jet due to our incapability to arrange a high thrust engine & unfortunately PAKFA didn't work for us. Otherwise you can imagine that if design, finance, ToT, contracts, supply chain, etc worked well then just like Su-30 MKI we would be operating 1st few squads of Su-75 MKI & perhaps Naval Su-75K also as AHCA & N-AHCA, simple. In that case we may not have had 260 Su-30s perhaps. Bad luck for us & Russia.
> Our current backbone ASF is Su-30MKI as said in official & unofficial documentaries & if things went well then Su-75 MKI wold have been its replacement just like Russia is operating both. But we don't have MKI's replacement plan now

- F-22 didn't wait for F-15 to retire.​

- Su-57 didn't wait for Su-27/3X to retire.​

- F-35 didn't wait for F-16 to retire.​

- So no point in AHCA waiting for MKI to retire or AMCA to get IOC. Just inflating airframe is not a problem, except for you.​

7th gen will be defined by 2040, ie after AMCA is operational.
In 5 more years, Western and Chinese 6th gen will be operational. So 15 years should be enough to define 7th gen. After all, F-22 started development 10 years after F-15 was operational. So 7th gen work should start by 2040-45 in the US, 10 years after NGAD is operational.

> I really doubt if 7gen will be defiined by 2040 bcoz every decade is bringing rapid tech advancements.
The NGAD, FCAS, GCAP, Russian & Chinese versions have to reveal their flying prototype 1st, not just an expo model or poster.
NGAD, F/A-XX prototype might fly by 2030;
FCAS, GCAP prototype might fly by 2035.
I can't say anything about Russians & Chinese due to state of their Su-57 & J-20.
USA may wait to see performance of MLUed F-22.
NGAD, F/A-XX after revealing will need 5-10 years of testing then induction, means 2040s.
And if you say that if USA is reconsidering their NGAD, F/A-XX then same thing can happen with 7gen, simple.
So i don't see 7gen getting officially outlined before 2055-60.

Okay, let's ignore the US for the sake of discussion. Russia is a socialist-mixed economy too, and their 6th gen jet is a UCAV.
Su-57 is 5th gen. S-70 + derivatives are 6th gen.

So when did i oppose UCAV? I have just not spoken about it as part of my idea.

Mig-41 is 7th gen, at least by the definition we are going by, ie, hybrid engine.

> As a civillian, we can talk about how to defeat outlined 6gen, but it would be highly premature, immature & foolish to call it 7gen & waste time out of context.
> What i read on Wiki, MiG-41 will be stealthy 6gen high-supersonic high-altitude interceptor with Ramjet or Turbo-Ramjet, based on MiG-31. It'll carry DEW & hypesonic AAMs, ASatMs. So it won't be hypersonic aircraft with SCRamjet.
> But Interceptprs are bad dogfighters. They have to dash & catch intruders means afterburner flight means IR stealth compromised.
> Russian geography, geopilitics & military requirement is different than ours. We operated MiG-25 interceptor in recon role only. We didn't get its successor MiG-31. It is unlikely that we'll get its successor MiG-41.
> MiG-25, MiG-31, MiG-41, no naval versions, but my vision of AHCA has Naval version.

So no point to talk about Interceptor on this thread of a Naval Fighter unless you want to continue going off context.

Why not 2 of AMCA's 110 KN engines?

> So your reply has to be specific, not generic & incomplete.
> I already said that AMCA can be turned into optionally manned UCAV, making its cockpit modular, but with minimum 6 AAMs in IWB.

Imagine a much smaller version of the B-21, with 4T internal payload and 2 engines. This can be a strike version of 6th gen. With AMCA supporting it, why would we need a manned 6th gen?

> That's a good idea, i'm not against it, but that's not my idea, you don't wan't to understand that B-21 kind of manned or unmanned jet are safe only till they remain undetected, these boomerang shaped jets can't fly supersonic & can't dogfight. Once their payload is depleted they will be at risk & if discovered then surely shot down easily.
> 4 tons internal payload??? If 1 AAM = 250 Kg then 4 T = 16 AAMs. But you said above that those many AAMs would be useless.

That many AAMs may not be of any use. There are physical and psychological restrictions to how and where you use AAMs.
The standard AAM loadout for any mission is 4+2 for air superiority missions or 2+2 for interception and strike. Even going for 6+2 is rare.

Anyway, I posted this elsewhere, but I have bad news for you. Ever since AMCA turned from a semi-stealth fighter powered by F414 into a fully stealth fighter with a new 110 KN engine, the IAF canceled their planned 6th gen program that was supposed to start after FGFA, ie, 2025+. Now their goal is to develop AMCA and depend on it and then work on a new jet after AMCA. And naturally, this jet will cater to that time period, ie, 2040-2060.
So AMCA changed from a 20T to a 27T version. This led to an increase in length, fuel load to 6.5T and thrust to 110 KN, from the earlier 4T fuel and 98 KN thrust. It was originally a replacement for Jaguar, while FGFA was the primary air superiority fighter to begin induction between 2020 and 2025.
So your dream of a 6th gen fighter, to be developed between 2025-2040, died a decade ago.

> Are you Retard? You don't know meaning of CHAT????? The use of an unofficial chat forum is not just for news, but also to express dissatisfaction, discuss alternate ideas, etc. It is for time pass. No Air Force, Navy, Army, Government agency is monitoring this or looking for advice from civillians.
So bcoz my dream died long back, i have expressed myself in many forums like every other member. Some watch Netflix, some watch sports, some go to FB, Instagram, some go to forums of their choice.
> Since 1947, GoI/MoD/DoD has publicly excelled in wasting tax payer's money & lagging in R&D.
> AMCA's gross weight is quoted 20T, MTOW increased from 25 to 27T. But still it can't carry custom AShM, ARM, AGM internally. How many times will i tell this? Get this tattooed on your hand.

Going back to your analogy; F-22 waited for F-15, NGAD waited for F-22 etc, I will explain how our program will be implemented. After ADA finishes work on AMCA, let's say when the jet enters LSP, or progresses a bit more, ADA will seriously start conceptualizing a next gen aircraft. This aircraft will naturally be more sophisticated and advanced than NGAD, SCAF etc, which will be flying or operational by then. So we are in 2030-35 by then. Let's assume that ADA will finish conceptualization of the next gen jet when AMCA will achieve IOC. Then ADA will submit their proposal to the IAF, based on which IAF will create next gen requirements.
These next gen requirements will be sent to the govt for processing, which they will take up when AMCA enters production formally. The govt will then approve ADA's program and they will start preliminary design stage and send the design to the IAF for approval. If the IAF agrees, then a new program will start. This process will take roughly 10 years to finish after AMCA's IOC stage. So if IOC is achieved in 2035, a new gen program will formally begin in 2045. In 5 or 6 years this jet will also enter LSP, once it achieves IOC, ADA will push for a new program. This is how the system works. In the meantime, they will build some more AMCAs to keep the production line busy.
So now you can see why AMCA and your 6th gen AHCA cannot run in parallel. It defeats the purpose. It's like buying 2 flagship smartphones at the same time when you have just 1 phone number. There can only be 1 primary ASF at a time. Similarly, only 1 light fighter or 1 strike fighter or 1 stealth bomber.

> And this is exactly the problem with current system/GoI/MoD/DoD - lack of timely coordination & day-dreaming. Big thanks for beautifully explaining our sluggish "sarkari" system which dreams of a superb far future but leaves a big hole for nearby future, praying & hoping that war won't happen till our R&D manifests into products. So you also pray that war won't happen till 2040/45/50.
> Time flies, technology evolving so fast but IAF, GoI, ADA, HAL are just playing & also blaming each other for the delays & mistakes. Go watch some talk shows & discussions involving some Ex-servicemen also who are also dissatisfied with our progress.
> Our system for requirements considers only Pakistan rather than having global ranking in R&D.
> As per current state of military technology & in next few decades, AMCA can never be ASF, not even other jets in its class like KF-21, Kaan, J-31/25. Like i said before many times, we're making it due to our incapability to arrange high thust engine by self/JV/import. You only said above that we don't have the capability.

We do not have the capability today anyway.

So you can call AMCA our flagship product bcoz we are incapable of producing something better upto requirement on time.
It is like India doesn't have its own things like OS like MS Windows; chips like Intel/AMD; computers like DELL, HP, etc make; consumer electronics like Samsung, Apple, LG make, but still we Indians boast of ourselves, buy imported stuff & show off our iPhone, Samsung S24, etc. That's how we waste our money & foreign MNCs earn money & do R&D from our money.
> If GTRE made a good engines then LCA either wouldn't exist or in very few numbers, AMCA would have entered service long back & with much better design & AHCA would also be entering service like J-20 & Su-57.

You talk like either you or your friend/relative/family is/was part of GoI/MoD/DoD. You feel oblidged to take people's focus off their mistakes, scams, delays, bad decisions, etc.

That's fine theoretically. But operationally, it won't matter due to the standard use of drop tanks.
For MKI to be as useful as Rafale for DPS, it needs drop tanks. Without it, MKI will be restricted to 500 km while Rafale can be used up to 1000 km.

After putting pic of F-16 Vs F-35 in 1st intro post also, you still didn't get that in era of stealth, a jet can't carry droptanks in active battle.

And for the sake of 12T fuel, if we develop AHCA parallely to AMCA, then we are just wasting money to gain a capability that will rarely be used.

> When technology evolves rapidly but the products don't & makers are adamant, arrogant, ignorant, stubboorn to stick to obsolete design then that's the real waste of tax payer's money.
> Moreover, nobody looks for active war every now & then. So WAR ITSELF SHOULD BE RARE.
> And talking about something in distant future which is not defined yet & out of context is waste of time & brain.

That's why any AHCA will be developed for the distant future. And sure, it can have 12T fuel or even 15T or even 20T. Who knows?

> J-20 is quoted 12 T of internal fuel. MiG-31 has 16 T. Beyond this it is difficult to imagine a Naval Fighter to have more internal fuel.
> Our carriers are smaller than American ones so space is big concern.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

When a medium weight fighter like Rafale can carry more payload than Su 30 MKI, what is the need of heavy combat aircraft? We should turn ORCA into a replacement of SU 30 MKI. It can carry more payload than Su 30 MKI and do everything which Su30 MKI can do and lot more. There is a need to ditch this concept of Heavy combat aircraft. It will be a lengthy process of developing new engine, new design etc. We can reconfigure ORCA to meet all mission requirements of SU30 MKI. We are planning a 75/110 KN engine. We can use this engine and can easily build a plane which can carry 9 to 10 ton Payload. With the advancement of technology, our weapons are getting compact. e.g. Brahmos NG. Our new plane will not require to carry heavy weapons like BRAHMOS. It will be a good idea to turn ORCA into a plane which can perform heavy aircraft mission. It should be a multi role fighter with air superiority and force intrusion capability.

> I thought mentioning many points in 1st intro post & replies thereafter would clear the querries.
> You only think why countries of all sizes, geography, geopolitics, operate big jets like F-15 & Su-3X & it has continued into 5gen & even 6gen.
> Actually every gen has heavy & medium jets. But why?
> A Cruise missile can have range of 2,500 Kms & these big jets have range of 3,000 Kms. So light & medium jets can also have that range.
> A light jet like LCA can also carry some EW, SPJ, sensors, pods, etc.
> Some medium jets like Rafale, EF-2000 can supercruise also.
-
> But it is the weapons payload which created marked difference till 4gen itself.
> Thereafter since 5gen stealth jets, some minimum internal payload became priority - 6-8 AAMs & very few AGMs can fit in IWB. If the enemy is tactical in evading our AAMs then repeated firing is required.
> Not just Rafale, EF-2000 have good payload but even JAS-39 Gripen also, but they all are older 4gen non-stealthy jets. No matter how much MLU, RAM, composites you apply on them, their RCS can never drop to 5gen level, bcoz the geometric airframe design alone is a significant aspect, so the older airframe design itself is obsolete.
> And Naval jets are at least 2-4 tons heavier than AF version due to the stronger landing gear, larger wing.
> 6gen charateristic of DEW will add some more weight, say 1-2 ton more.
-
> So it is better to design a Naval jet which will automatically adjust for the AF also. At least have a common fuselage with different wing design.
> What the world has not seen yet is Naval + Stealth jet + sufficient fuel/range + IWB payload including custom AGMs/AShMs/CrMs like Brahmos-NG. You do the calculation of all components - such a jet can never be light or medium weight.
> Engine is the only hurdle to maintain a good Airframe-TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio).
> Whether the jet is manned or UCAV, the same idea applies.
> Some people think of offloading sensors, weapons to attriable UCAVs, that's their opinion, but i feel that's very risky. The idea of "offloading" sounds overconfident. And the idea of "attriable" sounds careless.
-
This is the shortest & easiest explanation i can give.

 

[HariPrasad]

MKI can carry more payload at more distance plus its ability to fire BrahMos A is uncanny for any other IAF jet. F-35 can't replace F-22, J-31 can't replace J-20, Su-75 can't replace Su-57; similarly Rafale/Mig-29/M-2000/MK2/TEDBF none can match or replace MKI.

Just think which other "Medium" category jet in our current/future inventory can carry a massive 2400 TRM GaN radar. That in itself is game-changing.

In the end, light, medium or heavy all substitute each other and not replace. Rafale can do things MKI can only dream of and also vice-versa.

My Point is this.

Our proposed 75/120 KN engine is almost same in power to AL 31 while weighing 30% less and much smaller in Dimension. With lighter frame, ORCA can have far superior T/W ratio compared to MKI. Rafale with less than 2/3rd power engine compared to MKI carries higher payload. MWF with less than 1/3rd power of total power of MKI can carry MKI can carry 2/3 rd payload of MKI. If we can curve out a version of ORCA for air force, It will surpass MKI in all performance category. Be it external payload, be it speed, be in maneuverability (If TWC engine is installed), electronics or anything that you may say. Now what is the point in building these heavy aircrafts when a medium aircraft can do the duty. Currently, Rafale is far more capable than MKI. New version of Rafale is going to be even more capable. I do not see much utility of heavy aircrafts when medium aircrafts can do everything which heavy aircraft can do and much more.

Another point which shall remain is what we ourselves in coming 3 decades. What are our ambitions and what shall be our economy. IF we have aggressive design with bigger military ambitions, we can spend more on weapon which does not have much utility compared to existing one (Including in Development). If we have big ambitions and lots of money, we can think of spending on the projects like what you say. I do not see any point in doing that otherwise.

 

[HariPrasad]

> I thought mentioning many points in 1st intro post & replies thereafter would clear the querries.
> You only think why countries of all sizes, geography, geopolitics, operate big jets like F-15 & Su-3X & it has continued into 5gen & even 6gen.
> Actually every gen has heavy & medium jets. But why?
> A Cruise missile can have range of 2,500 Kms & these big jets have range of 3,000 Kms. So light & medium jets can also have that range.
> A light jet like LCA can also carry some EW, SPJ, sensors, pods, etc.
> Some medium jets like Rafale, EF-2000 can supercruise also.
-
> But it is the weapons payload which created marked difference till 4gen itself.
> Thereafter since 5gen stealth jets, some minimum internal payload became priority - 6-8 AAMs & very few AGMs can fit in IWB. If the enemy is tactical in evading our AAMs then repeated firing is required.
> Not just Rafale, EF-2000 have good payload but even JAS-39 Gripen also, but they all are older 4gen non-stealthy jets. No matter how much MLU, RAM, composites you apply on them, their RCS can never drop to 5gen level, bcoz the geometric airframe design alone is a significant aspect, so the older airframe design itself is obsolete.
> And Naval jets are at least 2-4 tons heavier than AF version due to the stronger landing gear, larger wing.
> 6gen charateristic of DEW will add some more weight, say 1-2 ton more.
-
> So it is better to design a Naval jet which will automatically adjust for the AF also. At least have a common fuselage with different wing design.
> What the world has not seen yet is Naval + Stealth jet + sufficient fuel/range + IWB payload including custom AGMs/AShMs/CrMs like Brahmos-NG. You do the calculation of all components - such a jet can never be light or medium weight.
> Engine is the only hurdle to maintain a good Airframe-TWR (Thrust to Weight Ratio).
> Whether the jet is manned or UCAV, the same idea applies.
> Some people think of offloading sensors, weapons to attriable UCAVs, that's their opinion, but i feel that's very risky. The idea of "offloading" sounds overconfident. And the idea of "attriable" sounds careless.
-
This is the shortest & easiest explanation i can give.

If you are talking about fifth generation, it is ok. However, when can we make it. AMCA is under development for more than a decade any yet officially more than officially a decade away from being induction. If we plan a heavy aircraft which is stealth, in no case it can come before 2050. So not try something which does not seems feasible.

So far as making naval and aircraft version from same plane, RAFALE M is an example. It is always difficult to make a naval version from air force version but easy to make air force version from naval version. ORCA is designed with a very high T/W ratio. Air force version shall be lighter with a phenomenal T/W ratio. If we build frontal stealth, and top-notch Active cancellation system like what we have in RAFALE, it can easily overpower existing jets except F-22. there is no point in making so called fifth generation jets like J-20 and J-31 which are so called stealth without any fifth-generation capabilities. Mentally conceive something which futuristic even by US or Russian standard and Chase it for years is pointless. In between, in case of emergency, IAF will raise an urgent demand for purchase to replenish depleting fleet. What we need is practical approach. However, if it is needed anyhow, batter partner with Russia and customize SU 57.

 

[Rajput Lion]

My Point is this.

Our proposed 75/120 KN engine is almost same in power to AL 31 while weighing 30% less and much smaller in Dimension. With lighter frame, ORCA can have far superior T/W ratio compared to MKI. Rafale with less than 2/3rd power engine compared to MKI carries higher payload. MWF with less than 1/3rd power of total power of MKI can carry MKI can carry 2/3 rd payload of MKI. If we can curve out a version of ORCA for air force, It will surpass MKI in all performance category. Be it external payload, be it speed, be in maneuverability (If TWC engine is installed), electronics or anything that you may say. Now what is the point in building these heavy aircrafts when a medium aircraft can do the duty. Currently, Rafale is far more capable than MKI. New version of Rafale is going to be even more capable. I do not see much utility of heavy aircrafts when medium aircrafts can do everything which heavy aircraft can do and much more.

Another point which shall remain is what we ourselves in coming 3 decades. What are our ambitions and what shall be our economy. IF we have aggressive design with bigger military ambitions, we can spend more on weapon which does not have much utility compared to existing one (Including in Development). If we have big ambitions and lots of money, we can think of spending on the projects like what you say. I do not see any point in doing that otherwise.

In an all-out war/air-battle, heavy-weights have the ability to harass the light/middle-weights via higher endurance and combat persistence. Plus the ability to carry bigger/larger avionics is an added plus. The upgradeability of heavy-weights is also better because of more space available.

China and Russia having such a large heavy-weight fighter jet force is an eye-opener to those who think that light/medium can compete with heavy-weights.

In fact, we should be thankful to our past governments for having 270+ MKIs as they're our only saving grace now. Rest of our fleet is either too small(Rafale) or too old(rest). If a war breaks out now MKI shall still prove itself to be our 2-front ace. IAF has already gamed it multiple times and found it so.

Anyways, as our economy grows stronger having an AHCA to replace MKI is a forgone conclusion. Till then we need MK1A/MK2/AMCA in numbers to build our indigenous aerospace industry along with having our own jet engine.

 

[HariPrasad]

In an all-out war/air-battle, heavy-weights have the ability to harass the light/middle-weights via higher endurance and combat persistence. Plus the ability to carry bigger/larger avionics is an added plus. The upgradeability of heavy-weights is also better because of more space available.

China and Russia having such a large heavy-weight fighter jet force is an eye-opener to those who think that light/medium can compete with heavy-weights.

In fact, we should be thankful to our past governments for having 270+ MKIs as they're our only saving grace now. Rest of our fleet is either too small(Rafale) or too old(rest). If a war breaks out now MKI shall still prove itself to be our 2-front ace. IAF has already gamed it multiple times and found it so.

Anyways, as our economy grows stronger having an AHCA to replace MKI is a forgone conclusion. Till then we need MK1A/MK2/AMCA in numbers to build our indigenous aerospace industry along with having our own jet engine.

How about buying Su 57 and customize it to the Indian condition as MKI Replacement? It will be very much time consuming to go for a new 5th generation AHCA. Develop AMCA and buy customized Su57? We can consider it for our MMRCA tender as well. If rafale is not finalized, we may go for Su57 with French avionics like what is being done in MKI.

 

[Rajput Lion]

How about buying Su 57 and customize it to the Indian condition as MKI Replacement? It will be very much time consuming to go for a new 5th generation AHCA. Develop AMCA and buy customized Su57? We can consider it for our MMRCA tender as well. If rafale is not finalized, we may go for Su57 with French avionics like what is being done in MKI.

That was FGFA but sadly it's dead now. Sometime back, UAC did file a patent of 2-seat Su-57. So we could customize it with our indigenous avioinics. We don't need French or Israeli systems like earlier MKI variants. Our electronics are now world class. So maybe a Su-60MKI to complement and later replace MKI will be a good thing though now it's upto IAF to decide.

So far they have decided on AMCA as their tip of the spear with Rafale and MK2 in support roles for the future. Let's see in which direction we head towards.

 

[Speedster1]

Trump will try to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine with a stated goal of pulling Russia out of its 'no holds barred' partnership with China.

If this happens, only then would a notional Su-57MKI would make sense imo. Russia is too unpredictable right now.

Personally, I think we should look at a scaled-up 30t MTOW class TEDBF with a LERX+delta wing config similar to the PAK-FA (already perfected by ADA on N-LCA Mk1), canted vertical tail fins, chined forward fuselage, etc.

They could probably widen the fuselage a bit to fit an IWB.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

> From global tech evolution PoV, we are seeing dawn of era of 6gen & dusk of era of 5gen. The leader nation(s) won't wait for lagging nations to catch up bcoz it is domination + business.
> You should understand a simple thing that Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese are just pushing 4.5gen to rest of world so that they can fund their R&D of future tech & we have been falling in that quicksand.

- The MLUed 4gen are just gap fillers now, even the future Rafale F5/F6 & EF-2000 Tranche-5/6. Don't forget GCAP & FCAS.​

- If any nation has or will have 5/6gen jet then it will always use them to spearhead a battle followed behind by 4.5gen. FCAS will lead, Rafale will follow; GCAP will lead, EF-2000 will follow; F-22+F-35 will lead, F-15/16/18 will follow; J-20+J-35 will lead, J-10/11/15/16 will follow.​

> So if you or anybody wanna talk about medium jet then talk about a stealthy one.

- F-35 is the only active service stealth medium jet. J-35 is being revealed at Zhuai airshow. Kaan is intermediate b/w medium & heavy.​

- So you should compare with these jets. Compare F-22 Vs F-35, Su-57 Vs Su-75, J-20 Vs J-35. AFAIK, even the NGAD will have 1 medium & 1 heavy jet. Why comparing 4gen jets design?​

> So now among any class of stealth jet, it is simple maths to maintain TWR, as the internal load or STOW (Stealth Take Off Weight) increase, so does the engine thrust & both parameters increase total STOW.
> But you & some other members are ignoring either the generation or firepower or both of a fighter.

My Point is this.
Our proposed 75/120 KN engine is almost same in power to AL 31 while weighing 30% less and much smaller in Dimension. With lighter frame, ORCA can have far superior T/W ratio compared to MKI. Rafale with less than 2/3rd power engine compared to MKI carries higher payload. MWF with less than 1/3rd power of total power of MKI can carry MKI can carry 2/3 rd payload of MKI. If we can curve out a version of ORCA for air force, It will surpass MKI in all performance category. Be it external payload, be it speed, be in maneuverability (If TWC engine is installed), electronics or anything that you may say. Now what is the point in building these heavy aircrafts when a medium aircraft can do the duty. Currently, Rafale is far more capable than MKI. New version of Rafale is going to be even more capable. I do not see much utility of heavy aircrafts when medium aircrafts can do everything which heavy aircraft can do and much more.

> BY THAT LOGIC ANY LFA CAN ECONOMICALLY BEAT ANY MFA, THEN WHAT IS THE POINT IN BUILDING MEDIUM JET?
> I already gave you answer - payload delivered by an airframe per sortie & fuel used. It is Military Economics.

> You are not realizing that your point is calling Americans & Russians as foolish to have made F-15 & Su-3X in 4gen, then F-22 & Su-57 in 5gen & now again in 6gen.
> Although due to limited time i've stopped talking about 4gen everywhere, but from design PoV it is interesting to see that Rafale payload is 9.5T, F-18E has 8T, while the Sukhois can carry upto 8T only. Although F-15E can carry 10.4T.

- May be delta-canard gives more payload MTOW than tandem biplane.​

- But it is also said that canard design is less stealthier than tandem biplane.​

- Sukhois have clipped delta wing which prioritizes to reduce drag & its outcome could be lesser wing load, IDK for sure.​

- It also depends on skeleton structure designed by mechanical engineers. If we tell 10 teams to use CAD & design exact same structure then also there will be noticeable differences.​

- Most advanced Flanker is Su-35-S, certainly not current MKI. I wonder what Russians have to say about Su-35 Vs Rafale/EF-2000.​

> The latest thing to note is that Europeans earlier opted for medium jets Rafale & EF-2000 but now the GCAP & FCAS are going to be heavy class jets bcoz of simple fact that 6gen characteristics of internal components increase so does engine with higher thrust & both increase weight.

If you are talking about fifth generation, it is ok. However, when can we make it. AMCA is under development for more than a decade any yet officially more than officially a decade away from being induction. If we plan a heavy aircraft which is stealth, in no case it can come before 2050. So not try something which does not seems feasible.

Another point which shall remain is what we ourselves in coming 3 decades. What are our ambitions and what shall be our economy. IF we have aggressive design with bigger military ambitions, we can spend more on weapon which does not have much utility compared to existing one (Including in Development). If we have big ambitions and lots of money, we can think of spending on the projects like what you say. I do not see any point in doing that otherwise.

> That's exactly the desease in our system since 1947 - pesimism, procrastination, delays, scams, lack of funds & R&D, excuses, blame game, import culture, underconfidence to make future oriented thing in time but overconfidence to win future war, ignorane & arrogance. And after celebratng 75 years also we are not lerning to move forward on time.
> I'm not taking about 5gen but whatever best we can do. We have developed RAM, we can design RAS geometry, all we need is a proper engine by self/JV/import.
> We are not just in era of advanced S/w, design tools but also AI, machine learning, advanced robotics, etc.
We have IT industry since 3.5 decades.
We have Super Computers. Lots of CFD sims & other tests can be done quickly.
Today it doesn't take so long to research & design something, be it an automobile or aircraft. The prototype flight tests can take time.
But still if we just boast about our global CEOs but not develop & use our own S/w tech for R&D on time then it is our fault.

So far as making naval and aircraft version from same plane, RAFALE M is an example. It is always difficult to make a naval version from air force version but easy to make air force version from naval version.

That's what i said.

ORCA is designed with a very high T/W ratio. Air force version shall be lighter with a phenomenal T/W ratio.

> After such easy, short, point-wise explanation also you wanna go reverse gear & want obsolete design to be RE-CREATED for next 50-60 years.
> It is not just about TWR but also stealth & firepower. There is no global standard or agreement on ideal dry/wet TWR but very high TWR means under-utilized payload capacity.
> What does ORCA mean - Omni Role Combat Aircraft, same as MRCA/MRFA (Multi Role Combat/Fighter Aircraft).
Conceptually, it looks like Mirage-2000+Rafale with no geometric treatment :

> Apart from composites & EW, neither ORCA, TEDBF, MWF have any geometric stealth nor Rafale, EF-2000, etc.
> The jet makers, USA, Russia, EU, China, all will stretch their 4gen for few more decades but none are stopping their R&D for future, but people like you want India to stop/stall is R&D, WHY?
> I explained many times that a gen leap occurs when the airframe design is obsolete & upgrading it further is not efficient.
> I also mentioned many times that from 1st gen to present & till eternty, a newer gen jet is supposed to defeat older gen jet most of the times.
> Every future jet needs to have a stealthy geometry, RAM, comprehensive EW.

If we build frontal stealth, and top-notch Active cancellation system like what we have in RAFALE, it can easily overpower existing jets except F-22.

> Why only frontal stealth? Is the enemy oblidged to attack only from front straight? A jet has to maneuver a lot due to navigation, terrain, SAMs & other threats from ground & air, so from other angles also geometric stealth cannot be compromised.
> EW is complex cat & mouse game. You think only Rafale has the best EW package? Every maker pitches their product to be best. And although there will be Rafale F5, F6 but France also developing FCAS, so why you're ignoring the advancements????
> Progressing & advacement requires to comapre with better things. If you will compare with existing jets of 4gen then it is stagnating, not progressing.

there is no point in making so called fifth generation jets like J-20 and J-31 which are so called stealth without any fifth-generation capabilities.

> We should never underestimate adversaries. China makes crap for the world with cheap labor & raw materials, but not for self.
> My vision of AHCA is 5.5gen to start with then modularly upgraded to 6gen.

Mentally conceive something which futuristic even by US or Russian standard and Chase it for years is pointless.

> Don't worry. Everybody doesn't have same comprehension, creativity, intelligence, will power, persistence, consistency, etc.

> Although on a casual chat forum, different members have different qualification, experience, comprehension, perception, but we all are trying to mentally conceive something in different ways.
> We are already living an alternate surreal life since 1947, & even before it since 1,000 years of slavery.
> No need to compare with others. If we don't do R&D then our education system is getting wasted & will lead to brain-drain, massive unemployment, perhaps civil war.

> But we all are doing time pass chit chat here, isn't it? DoD not monitorng & looking for input from us. So either ways, don't discourage others if you don't wanna think.

In between, in case of emergency, IAF will raise an urgent demand for purchase to replenish depleting fleet. What we need is practical approach.

Since 1947 we have seen all the practical approaches leading to imported replenishments.

However, if it is needed anyhow, batter partner with Russia and customize SU 57.

How about buying Su 57 and customize it to the Indian condition as MKI Replacement? It will be very much time consuming to go for a new 5th generation AHCA. Develop AMCA and buy customized Su57? We can consider it for our MMRCA tender as well. If rafale is not finalized, we may go for Su57 with French avionics like what is being done in MKI.

> Didn't i say that if things went well with PAKFA then Su-57 would have been our AHCA.
> I also showed an edited diagram of Su-57 to notionally depict AHCA.
> But we had to exit PAKFA bcoz Russia took lot of money, didn't agree with our design suggestions & also not on ToT.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Personally, I think we should look at a scaled-up 30t MTOW class TEDBF with a LERX+delta wing config similar to the PAK-FA (already perfected by ADA on N-LCA Mk1), canted vertical tail fins, chined forward fuselage, etc.
They could probably widen the fuselage a bit to fit an IWB.

> MTOW of TEDBF 2.0 should be at least equal to current jets like Su-33 has 33 tons.
> The MTOW of current jets are roughly double than their Empty Weights.
> The goal should be to improve it further. So if MTOW can be increased to that AF versions up to 38-40 tons then good.
> But in my N-AHCA idea, most important design input is stealth+payload, meaning STOW (Stealthy TOW). Su-33's empty weight is 18.4 tons. So if the empty weight of a stealthy naval jet can be limited to 20 tons then remaining 20 tons can be designed for internal fuel, internal payload & external payload.
When we boast about Indian brains & global CEOs then we have to think radically now.

Current TEDBF design is ridiculously obsolete compared to notional F/A-XX.
But we can go for its LSP till a 180 KN class engine is ready by self/JV/import & work in parallel for the N-AHCA.