Let me say in general -
So why continue the cycle? It's sort of hypocritical to complain about Chinese aircraft always being called copies, only to do it yourself and complain another country is copying Chinese aircraft. I think all of the copy talk is sort of Childish at this point, I didn't expect you to go on twitter and stoke the flames, just to troll hyper nationalist Indians.
I'm also going to assume that India hasn't been given the Okay to Modify the F414 Nozzles. Leaving the Mk1 with a higher IR signature versus aircraft with serrated nozzles. This is quite underwhelming for an aircraft meant to enter service in the mid 2030's honestly, this is not accounting for delays given India's track record here. Of course the Mk1 is just a stepping stone for the Mk2. The Mk2 will likely solve all of these issues and then some. Are there any official timelines for the Mk2?
Hi, your assessments seem adequate, but I would add a few notes(please don’t start heated argument about stealth below this, I’m just a humble UAC worker with an opinion, not a radiowave scientist!)On every social site Indian citizens themselves can be noticed to be confused & frustrated by the delays.
The AMCA program director said that it'll have everything the F-35 or basically a proper 5gen jet has, but in MK1 or Mk2 not specified formally.
The jouranlists also just appease the DoD & not ask precise questions at Aero India or other visits & interviews.
3 decades after IT boom & other industrial domains also improved, today millions of Indian tech professionals + students, asking questions like -
- Why 5gen 1990s features still challenge in 2020s for India?
- AMCA said to be initiated in 2010, so what happened in last 15 years?
- YF-22 was re-designed in 1987 in just 3 months. India doesn't have 1980s tech & tools also?
- Why top tycoons like Tata, Ambani, Adani, etc not getting into R&D?
- Why basic features & improvements in AMCA Mk2 in 2040+ timeline when 6gen will be flying, that's 50 years after 5gen born?
But India certainly has RAM, RAS, supercomputing, automations, robotics, AI/ML, VR, AR, etc, just not getting utilised properly it seems.
Certain facilities like wind tunnels, fabrication, forging, higher ton press, etc have to be arranged or improved.
After watching this latest 3D CAD i would expect some adjustments in Mk1 itself -
> Ladder & canopy arc rail should be removed to reduce RCS.
> IFRP replaced by spine receptacle. We can get mixed tankers (boom + chute).
> The IWB widened little bit more.
> SWB should be implemented. MLG can be retracted laterally like in F-22.
> Round IRST with stealthy cover.
> Engines big concern & perhaps modified M-88 or EJ-200 with stealthy nozzle can be considered if no arm-twisting, interference. Kaveri R&D & JV(Joint Venture) should continue.
> Custom bombs, ARMs, CrMs, AShMs can be made to be carried internally.
> EOTS can be made retractable. P-8 has retractable turret ball. Su-34 has Platan EOTS. MiG-31 has retractable IRST on chin.
Hello, hope you're doing good. We all can keep our views. There's nothing to argue in heat bcoz we're citizens & 5 fingers different everywhere. What different govt. do could be different from what certain % of citizens feel. Internet simply brought people closer to talk on various things.
I put my expectations from AMCA after comparing F-22 & F-35. Many people with diagrams show RF scattering, round surface, surface discontinuities, bumps, etc contributing to RCS.
IDK the RCS return of RAM Vs coating on transparent windows like InSbO, etc. @Rodrigo Avella has a 'Manitou' 6gen concept where belly hexagonal DEW aperture is retractable.
I'm not journalist, nor i track politics, so exactly IDK what Russia & India did with FGFA/PAKFA except India disagreed in terms of work share, ToT, cost, etc.
The challenge of stealth jet is to mix weapons, fuel, sensors internally with structural integrity.
su75 has quite narrow central bay.
All 3 statements are wrong.
Okay.
My bad on MTLW, it's indeed 26(for some reason was sure it's 28).
Both are in similar weight classes, and both have similar iwb space.
But you only need lack of few or one of these things to act as a "limiting factor", And twr is the most looked at factor.
, i don't think having SWB for 2 IR-CCMs is problematic.
, hence a brand new non-stealthy design will simply get squashed like mosquito, or it'll have to do brooming & mopping of battlefield hitting targets which can't fire up at jets.can i have the range? i cant seem to be able to find it anywhere
You're using static thrust (on stand at that). The one you need is dynamic, i.e. at speed. Overall, not the right factors, this whole affair(supercruise) just works differently. Case example: Concorde, with rather pitiful TWR, yet way faster and far more sustainable supercruise than F-22.
Analysis of t-75 from Chengdu, J-20 design firm, said the math isn't mathing as advertised. Obviously several erroneous points but the point about empty weight/take off weight, size and combat range not checking out is interesting. Also emphasis on advertisement of "continuous supersonic cruise" rather than "supercruise," similar to desperate language from lockheed's f-35 or eurofighter at times.
The F-22, J-20, J-35, KF-21 Blk3, and AMCA have two belly weapons bays placed side by side to create a single large roughly 2m wide central bay.
Suggests Safran might not be as locked in for the engine partner as was reported a few months back when they were reported to be finalising the MOU after being selected as the preferred partner.
Rolls Royce aims to make India a 'home market'; jet engine, naval propulsion programmes in focus
Rolls-Royce aims to establish India as its third home market. The company plans significant investments in jet engines, naval propulsion, and land systems. This move will unlock opportunities across advanced engineering sectors. Rolls-Royce will collaborate with Indian defence firms for engine...economictimes.indiatimes.com
Rolls Royce CEO says they are planning a major investment in Indian production to make it their third foreign home market after Germany and the US. They are finalising the MOU to supply engines for Arjun tanks (presumably the Mk2) as well as another land combat vehicle program, they are in talks to produce the engine for the AMCA and a marine derivative of the turbine for the Indian Navy's ships.
I'm assuming you're talking about airframe design change.
So we were in the same situation. However, when I saw first time the YF-23 and YF-22 on the cover of the magazine, I was shocked and it was immediately clear what the fifth generation was.
In 5th gen, the most standout feature is stealth, a majorly airframe based feature.
www.twz.com
On the other hand.
We don't know that. And i personally would be very careful making this conclusion, esp. for smaller, J-20 sized J-XDS. Same scale, same elements; why should it be different?
Frankly speaking, they don't *need* long range strike fighter which they don't really even control either, yet here we are.
SAAB juuuust about finished their current fighter development program.
I really do not think this is true at all. In order to come to this conclusion, you had to have been only considering the manned component, which even then still doesnt hold true.
