AMCA News and Discussions

Locked
member_28640
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_28640 »

brar_w wrote:Considerable test points are added due to Low observability, Internal weapons bays, sensor-fusion and advanced communication suites. The F-18E/F had about 35K test points, the F-22 around 46K and the F-35 has 56+K test points.
According to SJha ... Main focus in the AMCA is for it to have high spec avionics and Electronic survivability ... Such electronic upgrades are quicker to test than an aero related test point ... Even though test points are more unit time of resolving a test point is reduced compared to a LCA..
In the last 4-5 years DRDO came up with many indigenous electronics.. Continuing the momentum I see a shorter development lifecycle for the AMCA..
As I mentioned earlier focus should be on IRST, Uttam follow up (LPI), Upgrades on the diagnostic system in LCA etc...
The most importatnt point from aero side is that internal carraige should be as max as possible.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

Internal carriage of weapons, and bays themselves add considerable testing time compared to legacy even if everything goes as planned which rarely does. Stealth does the same if one is to test it out under various situations and scenarios. Advanced avionics and equipment takes even longer to test out not to mention develop an integrated architecture from the different components. Modern 5th generation fighters are flying antenna farms (the f-22 for example has 30 embedded Antennas) , and as such you have significant test-point addition because you have to test the interoperability, and then take the thing to ranges to see if it can hold its VLO mould despite of all the emissions and conflicting priorities. Weapon bays require testing throughout the mission envelope, with different loads and under different stressing situations and simulated failures. All in all, expect around a 50% increase in testing due to design features (design includes avionics architecture) exclusive to a modern 5th generation fighter. Additionally based on evidence on 5th generation fighters, when a problem with the avionics is encounters it takes longer to fix during testing because the work-arounds are restricted under the strict EMCON and LPI features inherent to a 5th generation design requirement. All in all its a much more complex testing regimen then legacy/proven fighters. Avionics are one of the hardest things to master on a 5th generation project. You can reduce the VLO requirements as per your own comfort level but its advanced sensor fusion that is the enabler of 5th generation, without it your VLO is practically useless (if you do not have better SA and control over the battle-space). It would be akin to a special forces/stealth mission where one forgets to wear an earpiece for communications and has to resort to using a speaker :)
Last edited by brar_w on 04 Mar 2015 19:06, edited 1 time in total.
member_28640
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_28640 »

NRao wrote:
So I would see it safe to stick to the timelines provided by SJha and sadly that about late 2020's
IMO, two factors will help out this project: Funds (that stuff?) and the support from the user, especially very, very early support. The IAF can force a timeline. IF they are early adopters then the tipping point of the AMCA will come earlier. Else it could be a very long wait (for us).
But saar would the IAF go for such a lean management methodology, past experiences make me a bit skeptical.
member_28640
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by member_28640 »

brar_w wrote:Internal carriage of weapons, and bays themselves add considerable testing time compared to legacy even if everything goes as planned which rarely does. Stealth does the same if one is to test it out under various situations and scenarios. Advanced avionics and equipment takes even longer to test out not to mention develop an integrated architecture from the different components. Modern 5th generation fighters are flying antenna farms (the f-22 for example has 30 embedded Antennas) , and as such you have significant test-point addition because you have to test the interoperability, and then take the thing to ranges to see if it can hold its VLO mould despite of all the emissions and conflicting priorities. Weapon bays require testing throughout the mission envelope, with different loads and under different stressing situations and simulated failures. All in all, expect around a 50% increase in testing due to design features (design includes avionics architecture) exclusive to a modern 5th generation fighter. Additionally based on evidence on 5th generation fighters, when a problem with the avionics is encounters it takes longer to fix during testing because the work-arounds are restricted under the strict EMCON and LPI features inherent to a 5th generation design requirement. All in all its a much more complex testing regimen then legacy/proven fighters. Avionics is one of the hardest things to master on a 5th generation project. You can reduce the VLO requirements as per your own comfort level but its advanced sensor fusion that is the enabler of 5th generation, without it your VLO is practically useless (if you do not have better SA and control over the battle-space). It would be akin to a special forces/stealth mission where one forgets to wear an earpiece for communications and has to resort to using a speaker :)
Agree saar, but I was thinking that since its electronics multiple teams would work in parallel to test out code and hardware.. Whereas for testing any aero component we would need a model or the real thing to take to the air/wind tunnel.
Agree that AMCA proto would take to the air only as part of intergration testing, but much of what needs to be done would already be done or would be tested in parallel to aero tests
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by SaiK »

If my radar response analysis algorithm and radar computing processor can isolated any signal provided (perhaps with a filter pass to isolate right signature, and reduce noise), and if we can develop this as a separate LRU that can interface with the main radar receiver, then we have arrived at the most stealthier aspects of f22-raptorish passive scanning and tracking.

again: #RinseRepeat only kaveri 110kN can take us to reality!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by brar_w »

but I was thinking that since its electronics multiple teams would work in parallel to test out code and hardware.. Whereas for testing any aero component we would need a model or the real thing to take to the air/wind tunnel
Code is developed and tested (to an extent) in the lab, sensors can be and are tested on test-beds, but this does not remove the need to integrate everything on the platform and that often is the hardest part, especially when you begin to test the RCS, IR (Power management) requirements alongside your avionics/sensor performance. Thats when the fun starts.
ajay_hk
BRFite
Posts: 165
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 09:11

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ajay_hk »

Saurah Jha on twitter
Klimov has been brought in as a partner for developing thrust vectoring nozzles for future engines to be used in the AMCA program.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by devesh »

^^^
Is this an effort by DRDO to get an understanding of the broader engine design to accommodate TVC, instead of going blind and realizing much later that to incorporate TVC, they needed to have done something different in the earlier stages of design/development?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

All this TVC stuff scares me. More complexity which could be avoided.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Pratyush »

Or may be the GTRE is sufficiently confident about its capability, that it thinks that the engine can handle the TVC.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Karan M »

What engine? There is no engine yet.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Pratyush »

Ouch, but I was not revering to an existing engine.
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Thakur_B »

Russia to partner in AMCA technologies
By SP's Special Correspondent

March 07, 2015: India has approached Russia to partner it on certain critical technologies for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). Top sources tell SP's that the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) has asked Russia for assistance in developing thrust vectoring and certain other technologies on the concept fifth generation jet platform. There has been steady progress in the programme following the basic design freeze. The ADA has opened discussions with turbofan houses in the US, Russia and Europe for what it believes need to be 110 kN engines in twin configuration for the AMCA. The engines will specifically need to support supercruise. The ADA has indicated to engine manufacturers that modifications could potentially be a joint effort in country, involving the DRDO and other agencies if necessary. Either way, the ADA has ambitiously aimed at producing up to four prototypes, with the first rolling out in 2019. As the ADA recently set down as the aircraft's profile and definition, "The AMCA is being designed as a stealth, medium weight, twin engine, multimission aircraft with a swing-role capability. Among the advanced technologies that confer stealth capabilities are serpentine air intakes, internal weapons bays, radar absorbing structure (RAS), radar absorbing materials (RAM), frequency selective surface radome and conformal air data probes. The avionics system features integrated modular architecture supporting NCW capabilities, advanced pilot-vehicle interface, pilot associate and integrated vehicle health management. The integrated flight and propulsion control system will combine the traditional flight control functions with thrust vectoring and engine control functions."
http://www.spsmai.com/exclusive/?id=474 ... chnologies
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Kanson »

Singha wrote:AMCA is a many levels beyond the LCA. so you can imagine the US with its F-16/F-15 exp still had to slog like hell and pull its pants up for the F-22/JSF/F117/B2
US yes, but ...
F-16 belongs to General Dynamics
F-15 to McDonnell Douglas
F-18 to basically Northrop design though McDonnell Douglas
F-22 to Lockheed Martin

If there should be comparison, it should be with Hornet (F-18) and Super Hornet(F-18 E/F)

Some similarities: 1.both are/were developed by same agency, ADA in case of LCA/AMCA and MD in case of Hornet/SuperHornet.
2. Newer a/c development started while existing one's development was still in progress.

In terms of Program management, Super Hornet is hugely successful.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

Up for reference.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Outgoing Tejas chief says Mark II will fly in three years, enter IAF service in six

1)
The outgoing ADA director is even more bullish about the AMCA, which the IAF is supporting enthusiastically - a change from its opposition to the Tejas.
2)
The AMCA's configuration is finalised, and preliminary design is about to commence. That would provide a clear indication of how much funding the AMCA project would need. "I am confident that the AMCA project would cost less than any fifth generation fighter project anywhere. My estimate would be in the region of $4 billion (Rs 25,000 crore)," says Subramanyam.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

NRao, Good news. Thanks for posting it.

ramana
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

July 2, 2015 :: Interview with the boss of LCA Tejas, P S Subramanyam
Q: Anything regarding the AMCA project and the challenges you may face as it takes shape.

A: (1) AMCA configuration studies have been completed. (2)The Engine requirement for the aircraft has been finalised. (3)Stealth technology and (4)super-manevourability will (b)e the key challenges faced
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

March 15, 2015 :: India’s Combat Aircraft Programmes: Learnings From Past
Meanwhile, the Chinese today are flying two fifth generation fighter prototypes, at least one of which will enter series production sometime in the next decade and India at the moment is merely entering the project definition phase for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) which is a fifth generation effort crucial for India to continue building its aerospace sector on the foundation created through the LCA program. The AMCA is larger than the LCA and is a twin engine design in the ‘medium’ category with a max take off weight (MTOW) of 25 tons featuring stealth, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) fire control radar, networked data fusion and a large internal weapons bay.

But to not make a mess of this program which as per current MoD discussions has to begin flight testing in 2020 and enter production by 2025, it is important that the IAF accepts that the technology for what goes into making a fifth generation fighter is unevenly developed in India at the moment. For instance, India has very little capability in the domain of thrust vectoring at the moment and the IAF would do well to relax this requirement for the AMCA given that it isn’t really an absolute must for air combat in tomorrow’s environment. Then there is supercruise i.e the ability for a plane to fly at supersonic speed without the use of afterburner. For the AMCA, ADA is proposing a sustained speed of Mach 1.2 while using minimum after burner and expects that this would lead to a detection penalty of 5-7 km as compared to true supercruise.

Moreover, it is important that serious money be committed up front for this program with the IAF assuming ownership. At the moment some 7 test vehicles are envisaged to be built and tested at a cost of Rs 20000 crores. The engine for the AMCA prototypes will be the GE F414 INS6 to begin with i.e the same as the Tejas MK-II. For the production standard AMCA a 110 KN engine will be required for which talks are on with GE and the US Government to launch a joint program for ‘co-developing’ a 110 KN variant of the baseline F-414. These talks are proceeding under the aegis of the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative and if successful will see the manufacture of F414 variants in India. In the event of these talks not yielding results a global tender will be used to select the final engine for the AMCA
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Managed expectations on the GE engine:

June 3, 2015 :: The US defence secretary’s visit to India is about one thing—technology
In addition, working groups were announced to explore cooperation on jet engine technology and aircraft carrier design. Both areas are of immense importance to India, but according to reports in the Indian media, the US is reluctant to part with the latest jet engine technology, which New Delhi wants.

India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation wants to partner with GE on the latest F-414 engine for the future Tejas Light Combat Aircraft. So far the US side has been reluctant despite the scope of future engine deals which may leave India no choice but to consider an international tender, according to Ajai Shukla, a prominent defence analyst.

US analysts agree that Washington is unlikely to part with cutting-edge technology because that’s what gives its defence industry the edge. The DTTI initiative can start at the lower end to test how the two bureaucracies, private industry and other suppliers connect. “You can’t produce a Lamborghini right away,” one American official told me earlier this year.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:March 15, 2015 :: India’s Combat Aircraft Programmes: Learnings From Past
it is important that the IAF accepts that the technology for what goes into making a fifth generation fighter is unevenly developed in India at the moment. For instance, India has very little capability in the domain of thrust vectoring at the moment and the IAF would do well to relax this requirement for the AMCA given that it isn’t really an absolute must for air combat in tomorrow’s environment. Then there is supercruise i.e the ability for a plane to fly at supersonic speed without the use of afterburner. For the AMCA, ADA is proposing a sustained speed of Mach 1.2 while using minimum after burner and expects that this would lead to a detection penalty of 5-7 km as compared to true supercruise.
At this point in time the F-22 Raptor is the only aircraft in service in the world that has all aspect stealth, supercruise without afterburner and thrust vectoring.

If the IAF is asking for these - the IAF needs to come down to the real world and understand what is feasible in India and what is not. It is astounding that we have placed our warriors on such a pedestal that they are now totally detached from the harsh reality of R&D and national technical capability.

The idea of national technical capability as a part of the strategic strength of the nation was introduced into Air Force advanced training curricula barely 10 years ago and that too only in places like the Defence Services Staff College at Coonoor. One IAF (then serving) officer had mentioned the introduction of this concept about a decade ago. No one used to talk about it before.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5722
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Kartik »

I have AMCA pics from AI-'15 that kind of give the internal layout..haven't yet gotten around to hosting them somewhere so I could put them up on BRF.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

June 16, 2015 :: Bright Future For GE’s F414 Fighter Engine

AviationWeek.
GE Aviation will ship the first flight test F414-400 for a single-engine application to Saab later this year for the Gripen E, and production will begin in 2017.

Production of GE Aviation’s F414 fighter engine could run for another decade. Although orders for the main aircraft it powers, the twin-engine F-18 Super Hornet and Growler, are winding down, it is finding success elsewhere in the world.

GE Aviation will ship the first flight test F414-400 for a single-engine application to Saab later this year for the Gripen E, and production will begin in 2017. “We will have 90 engines on order by the end of this summer for Gripens for Sweden and Brazil,” says Jean Lydon-Rodgers, vice president and general manager of GE Aviation’s military systems. “And we expect that to increase as the Swedish order grows.”

The engine was also selected by India for the LCA Mk.2. The first flight test engine will ship in the fourth quarter of this year, with production to begin in 2018.

Korea, Turkey and India are also prospects for the engine for their next-generation fighter programs, she says.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is being pitched an F414 upgrade that would bring 20% more thrust, twice the power takeoff for systems, and lower maintenance costs. “It’s a very low-risk upgrade incorporating an all-blisk compressor and 3D aero in the compressor and turbine,” she notes.

The upgrade is also being considered by India for its next-gen fighter program, and a deal there could include partnering with Indian industry on design of components.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

I think that there are only two realistic options for the AMCA,414 upgrade,and the EJ powering the Typhoon with the TVC option,shown at the air show some time ago. The Q is TOT. If the MK-2 LCA is to have the same engine,it would be the first preference,provided holding back on engine tech does not ground the aircraft dependent upon it if the US imposes sanctions at a later date. That must be the prime factor in engine choice,as if the 414 is chosen,it would affect two aircraft. why I'be been saying for some time,that even the LCA Mk-2 should've had two engines for initial prototypes,the GE and EJ.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Slightly dated.

Feb 20, 2015 :: Development of indigenous AMCA on track

So, what are the major challenges:
The basic design configuration of AMCA has been finalised after wind tunnel testing. There are three critical technologies to be developed — {1}stealth, {2}thrust vectoring and {3}super cruise.
How are they being addressed:
{1}While stealth technologies will be developed by the DRDO, the organisation is {2}partnering with Russia for thrust vectoring.

{3}Super cruise essentially requires a high-capacity engine of 110 KN. Since India doesn’t have the technology to manufacture the engine, it is looking for partnerships and discussions are on with global engine manufacturers. The DRDO is likely to zero in on a partner within six months. The target is to integrate the engine into the aircraft by 2019
On basic techs:
The development of the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is on track and Russia is cooperating with some technologies, said Dr. K Tamilmani, Chief Controller R&D (Aero) of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) here on Thursday.

The basic technology required for AMCA is available with us,” Dr. Tamilmani said.

The endeavour is to build on the capabilities and expertise built during the development of the Light Combat Aircraft and produce a medium Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft. It falls in a different class than the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft being jointly developed by India and Russia.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Again, slightly dated, but the best info I could find on this topic, for what it is worth:

April 1, 2015 :: GTRE and Klimov agree to develop Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring Nozzle
India’s Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) and Russian JSC Rosoboronexport/JSC Klimov have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for joint development of Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring Nozzle for future generation aero-engine applications.

MoU was signed during Aero India-2015 held in Bengaluru during 19-22 February 2015. Dr K Tamilmani, DS, DG (Aero), DRDO and Dr CP Ramanarayanan, OS, Director, GTRE and the Russian team were part of the memorandum of understanding (MoU).

According to Sources close to idrw.org Klimov have offered to develop thrust vectoring nozzle (TVN) technology based on the universal KLITV (KLImov Thrust Vector) technology which can be customised for fitment on any jet engines.

Sources also informed that thrust vectoring nozzle (TVN) technology offered can be matted with engines of any OEM’s even if engines are from United states. India will commence development work on Homegrown 5th generation fighter aircraft project which as per IAF request will have thrust vectoring nozzle (TVN).

India is yet to select engines for AMCA, but Russians have assured India that even if India selects American or European engines for AMCA Project, they can customise it for their engines. While Europeans have developed their own TVN technology for Eurojet EJ200 engines and Americans to have their own technology
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Viv S wrote:
Fine. Then why is supercruise a requirement for AMCA?
Most likely to minimize the aircraft's IR signature when the tactical situation requires it to go supersonic.

Ding, ding, ding, ............. We have a winner.

Internet has everything ............................ Provided you try and search for it.

June 28, 2008 :: How important is Supercruise in the MMRCA competition?

To be sure, this article is about supercruise for the MMRCA and NOT the AMCA, although there is a reference in it:
Supercruise is not a qualitative requirement in the Indian Air Force's Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition, but that doesn't mean it won't play a role. It should be noted that while the Request for Proposal (RfP) document was being drawn up (it took nearly three years), supercruise was listed in the original draft as a mandatory requirement that the IAF was looking for. Dockets of research on the physics of supercruise, including numerous unclassified presentations on the F-22 and Eurojet GmbH did their rounds around Vayu Bhawan for a while in 2004-05. An example of just what a catchword supercruise was for the MMRCA, is documented here.
Direct quotes for you:
To quote the text of that portion of the original RfP draft, the IAF put it down that supercruise was required for "game-changing tactical advantages in offensive and defensive spectrum" and also "lowered IR signature, rapid theater presence, evolutionary sensor/weapon kinematics and denial of enemy reaction time". Interestingly, the IAF refrained from putting down any additional parameters for the supercruise regime it was looking for.
IF the IAF "refrained from putting down any additional parameters for the supercruise regime", FOR SURE, there are more out there. But these such suffice for now.
Obviously, the IAF has never operated supercruising aircraft before. Its Hunters routinely went briefly supersonic in steep dives, but never has it operated aircraft that could travel faster than sound in sustained level flight with a meaningful military payload without engine reheat. For all the criticism that the Indian armed forces usually cut and paste from brochures to draw up their qualitative requirements, the IAF did some homework in earnest on supercruise. As a matter of fact, during one meeting of the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) in 2007, at which the Tejas' propulsion problems were being deliberated upon, then Chief of Air Staff FH Major apparently said that the agencies involved needed to ensure that the next-generation engine that would ultimately power the Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) and the final integrated airframe, had supercruise capabilities.

Between 2004-07, the IAF had done some serious reading on supercruise, and formulated an opinion on the subject, apparently still a contentious one in military aviation research. However, the IAF finally decided not to push its case for supercruise in the final RfP document, which is why it does not exist in the final tender that was sent out to Saab, MiG, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, EADS and Dassault. In the event, that was a wise decision. Because it would probably have sliced away most or all of the contenders any way.

In January this year, a Gripen demonstrator aircraft -- of the type on offer to India -- achieved supercruise. Pilot Magnus Ljungdahl said, "The flight was conducted over the Baltic Sea, my altitude was 28,000 feet and the speed achieved was above Mach 1.2. Without using afterburner I maintained the same speed until I ran out of test area and had to head back to the Saab Test Flight Centre in Linköping."

Does one test flight prove that the Gripen IN can supercruise? Does that go onto the aircraft's CV then? Possibly. The Eurofighter can also apparently supercruise according to EADS. But Saab and EADS don't talk about what fuel/weapons loads the aircraft can carry when supercruising. The other four jets in the competition make no bones about not being able to supercruise, though there's plenty of hypocritical rhetoric that still comes the IAF's way from Boeing/Lockheed about how supercruise is not as economic, useful or tactically dramatic as it's made out to be in a modern military scenario, and therefore shouldn't seriously figure among the "x-factor" parameters that will be tested during the trial evaluations. A little rich, coming from the companies that tom-tom the F-22's supercruise capability as though the aircraft has little else to offer.

I imagine the IAF has sunk its teeth meaningfully into the supercruise debate -- because it is a debate. There are a huge number of considerations that go into the ability to supercruise, and it's the total package that counts. An officer at the IAF's top gun school TACDE rattled off a few of these considerations: fuel fraction, flow efficiency, air intake design that won't shatter the turbofan compressor during the transonic flight spectrum, and dozens of other considerations.

These are, of course, entirely separate from operational envelope considerations, which would need to develop through doctrinal evolution, if and when the IAF does operate aircraft with a no-nonsense capability to supercruise in the real sense.
Not a topic for discussion on BR. SC clearly cuts across a number of "considerations". Some of them up for discussion? Perhaps.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by Philip »

Thanks NR for those valuable nuggets of info.We now know where certain aspects of the prog. are coming from. The Q one asks,if not in the same league as the FGFA,is what the AMCA's primary role is? Is it meant to be a cheaper more affordable 5th-gen bird than the FGFA,adding to numbers of 5th-gen aircraft in the inventory,but with reduced capabilities (smaller in size would arguably mean smaller/less internal munitions,type of munitions) of strike or what? The difference in capability and price of the LCA MK-2 and the AMCA need to be also looked at,keeping in mind the "45 sqds" goal of the IAF. The IAF's inventory around 2025 needs to be examined.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

1) The AMCA is a "medium" (20-25 T), while the FGFA is a "heavy" (30+ T)
2) There is an ADA pic (via LiveFist) that covers this:
a) LCA: about 100 Kms
b) AMCA: 400-600 Kms
c) FGFA: 800+ Kms
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

There are plenty of articles - granted over around 15 years now - that show the progress made on the AMCA.

Here is one, perhaps my last post on the past of the MCA/AMCA:

Nov 16, 2010 :: Official Wishlist of Evolutionary Technologies for India's 5thGen AMCA
If the specialised team led by Indian aerospace scientist Dr AK Ghosh achieves what it has set out to (a huge IF, with all due respect), then one of the most dramatic aspects of India's concept fifth generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) will be its cockpit and man-machine interface.
IIRC, Dr. Ghosh and his team has been at this since 2001/2.

And, here is what are some of the techs they have been working on since then.
For starters, unlike the cluttered, resoundingly less-than-fourth-generation cockpit of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA Tejas), the AMCA cockpit could have a panoramic active-matrix display. Next, switches, bezels and keypads could be replaced with touch screen interfaces and voice commands. Finally, what the team wants is for the AMCA pilot to have a helmet-mounted display system that allows the jettisoning of a HUD from the AMCA cockpit altogether. Some pretty hardcore stuff. But the idea is this -- if India is building its own fifth generation fighter aircraft (not to be confused with the Indo-Russian FGFA/PAK-FA), and believes it can deliver, then aim for the damn stars. I've got my hands on AMCA documents that provide the first detailed view of just how ambitious the programme actually is. Let me run you through some of them.
The AMCA team has already asked private industry in the country to explore the feasibility of creating primary panoramic displays and other avionics displays that would befit a fifth generation cockpit environment. But the cockpit is just one of an ambitious official technology wishlist for the AMCA.
Again, a few other techs that they have have been working on for about a decade now:
The envisaged changes begin at the very basic -- system architecture -- and look towards a triplex fly-by-light electro-optic architecture with fiber optic links for signal and data communications, unlike the electric links on the Tejas platform. And unlike centralized architecture on the Tejas, the AMCA proposes to sport a distributed architecture with smart sub-systems. Similarly, unlike the LCA's centralised digital flight control computer (DFCC), the AMCA could have a distributed system with smart remote units for data communication with sensors and actuators, a system that will necessitate much faster on-board processors.

Next come sensors. The mechanical gyros and accelerometers on the Tejas will need to evolve on the AMCA into fiber optic gyros, ring laser gyros and MEMS gyros. The pressure probes and vanes that make up the air-data sensors will evolve into an optical and flush air data system, and position sensors will be linear/rotary optical encoders. Significantly, actuators -- currently electro-hydraulic/direct drive -- could be electro-hydrostatic to accrue substantive weight savings on the AMCA. Sensor fusion for an overarching situation picture goes without saying.

The AMCA could feature highly evolved integrated control laws for flight, propulsion, braking, nose wheel steer and fuel management and adaptive neural networks for fault detection, identification and control law reconfiguration.

I'm leaving out stealth from this piece, as I already covered it here in June, including internal weapons bays. And I've reported on the AMCA radar here.

Unlike the Tejas, which features an avionics systems architecture based on functionality-based individual computer systems connected on MIL-STD-1553B buses and RS 422 links, the AMCA's avionics systems architecture will feature a central computational system connected internally and externally on an optic fiber channel by means of multiport connectivity switching modules. In such a system, functionality will be mapped on resourcred optimally and reallocated when faults occur. At least, that's the idea. Data communications on the AMCA's processing modules will be through a high-speed fiber channel bus, IEEE-1394B-STD. The connectivities will be switched by means of a multiport switching matrix, with data speeds of 400MB/second.

The AMCA could have integrated radio naviation systems, where all functions earlier done by analogue circuits will be shifted onto the shoulders of digital processors. Communication system will be based on software radio ranging from UHF to K band, with data links for digital data/voice data and video.

Algorithms will evolve substantially too. While the Tejas features almost no decision aid, the AMCA pilot could have at his command the ability to plan attack strategies, avoid strategies, retreat strategies and evasive strategies for himself and his buddies. Limited fault recording and limited coverage in the maintenance and diagnostics algorithms on the LCA will evolve into far more advanced ones allowing extensive coverage.

This is an official technology wishlist for the AMCA. If it sounds far-fetched and overreaching -- and it well may -- it still provides a glimpse into what the programme is looking at for what will undoubtedly be India's most ambitious indigenous aerospace venture. Before I forget, here's a nice little slide illustrating the AMCA's envisaged operational envelope (subject of course to change).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Do not know who this author is, but ....................

What is the status and specifications of the Indian home grown AMCA project for the air force?

But, here is some data of interest.
With the delays in the Rafale deal, MoD has asked DRDO and HAL to start the prototyping of this fifth gen fighter.

At Aero India 2015, DRDO Director Dr.Tamilmani Confirmed that nine prototypes are confirmed and will go head with construction of the first prototype when funds are allocated in the later part of 2015.He also confirmed that the work on three major Technological issues which includes Thrust Vectoring and Super Cruising engine, AESA radar and Stealth technology is going on full swing and availability of the technology on the aircraft will occur on schedule In 2015, 700 ADA employees were working on the project with 2,000 employees of DRDO and 1,000 employees of HAL supported by over 500 employees of subcontractors of both Indian and foreign firmes. AMCA design team led by D.r A.K Ghosh had completed Low-speed Wind tunnel test, High-speef Wind tunnel test and Radar Cross-Section(RCS) test from 2008-2014.
The AMCA will features a full-panel-width glass cockpit touchscreen, panoramic cockpit display" (PCD), with dimensions of 60 by 24 centimeters designed by DARE and manufactured by Samtel Group or 44 by 18 centimetres by Elbit Systems with both systems supporting cockpit speech-recognition system (DVI) provided by Adacel which has been adopted on the F-35. A Helmet-mounted display system is under development with Head up display. Control system includes HOTAS Sidestick
There is a lot more in this article.
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

^^^ NRao ji, Thank you. Good digging for nuggets.

I was specially intrigued by the K9, K10 engine terms as a future development of Kaveri Engine.

Quoting an excerpt and calling attention of Maitya ji, Vina ji, Karan M, Ramana Sir and other gurus to look at this link:
Propulsion

AMCA will be a twin-engined design using an K 9 or K 10 engine which are successor to the cancelled Kaveri engine. While K 10 Program is a Joint Venture (JV) partnership with a foreign engine manufacturer. K 10 program engine will be final production standard Kaveri engine and shall have less weight and more reheat thrust along with certain other changes to meet the original design intent. Both the engines are being designed by ADA and developed by GTRE. On 19 February 2015 at the Aero India 2015, Director of DRDO Dr. Tamilmani told reports that a tender of joint venture on development of the engine is issued with General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Snecma, Eurojet, NPO Saturn, Klimov and IHI to use current engine technology by combining Kaveri engine technology with JV engine to produce an engine capable of producing thrust of 110-125 kN. Full development of the K 9 and K 10 engine would be completed by 2019. While AMCA Test Demonstrator would be powered by an existing 90 kN thrust engine.
and this just on propulsion. It is pretty detailed and needs to be looked at by respective domain experts.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ShauryaT »

One can also read all the articles linked on this wiki page to understand the background of the AMCA.

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/HAL_AMCA
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ShauryaT »

^^One thing that has intrigued me and I do not know the techs around this but one of the claims I have read is that the Kabini core of Kaveri would be "combined" with another core to come up with a new engine, the K10. Now, how does that happen?
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

ShauryaT wrote:One can also read all the articles linked on this wiki page to understand the background of the AMCA.

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/HAL_AMCA
While reading this link I realised that the term AMCA is not used by IAF and IN. They call this project Next Generation Fighter Aircraft (NGFA).
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by shiv »

deejay wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:One can also read all the articles linked on this wiki page to understand the background of the AMCA.

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/HAL_AMCA
While reading this link I realised that the term AMCA is not used by IAF and IN. They call this project Next Generation Fighter Aircraft (NGFA).
Deejay in two separate links that I read along with the intense forum discussions recently I got the following information

1. When a MiG 21 replacement was needed by the IAF, it was DRDO that inserted the idea that FBW and composites should be part of the specs, not IAF

2. More recently, when the IAF wanted a follow on fighter - an MRCA, the IAF did not ask for 5th gen technology. It was the DRDO that inserted the idea that the new fighter should have "5th gen" technologies

I am beginning to feel that DRDO may be the guilty party in piggybacking research programs or the operational requirements of the IAF.

The DRDO research should be separate from meeting operational requirements within timelines

Prof Prodyt Das - a controversial figure makes the following observation. Ideas like 4th gen and 5th gen are simply benchmarks in technology. There is no guarantee that a 3 gen aircraft will not shoot down a 4th or 5th gen aircraft. The technology level is not the same as effectiveness or lethality
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

@deejay:

Interesting times. MCA of circa 2000ish:

Image

:)

Yes, plenty of acronyms, ideas, etc. But, the fact remains that the "project" has been up and about for some 15 years. Given that techs have changed immensely and we have to expect the goal posts to have moved a dramatic amount, the AMCA will be a challenge. But that, I hope, does not deter India from moving forward. The success of this project - like any project or effort - will depend on vision and managing it.

@ShauryaT,

I have read a couple of article that say something similar (cannot recall details). BUT, I think those ideas/proposals are not related to the AMCA. They are on a parallel thread of their own. The AMCA engine is playing itself out right now and some aspect of it is expected to be nailed down in a few months.

Having said that here is some info on the GE engines:

Engine: (used in): KN/L/Outer dia/inner dia/thrust ratio
F-404 IN20 (LCA MK-I): 84/391/89/71/?:?
F-414 INS6 (LCA MK-II): 98/391/89/79/9:01
F-414 Enhanced Engine: 116/391/89/79/9:01

{http://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/f414/}

EJ-2000: 90/400/70/??/?:?

{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojet_EJ200}

# of engines required = (# of aircrafts) * (number of engines per aircraft) * 3.5

So,

LCA MK-II: 200 * 1 * 3,5 = 700 F-414 INS6 engines
AMCA: 200 *2 * 3.5 = 1400 engines (EJ-2000/GE-414 EE)

Number of aircrafts is assumed.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by ramana »

shiv wrote: Deejay in two separate links that I read along with the intense forum discussions recently I got the following information

1. When a MiG 21 replacement was needed by the IAF, it was DRDO that inserted the idea that FBW and composites should be part of the specs, not IAF

2. More recently, when the IAF wanted a follow on fighter - an MRCA, the IAF did not ask for 5th gen technology. It was the DRDO that inserted the idea that the new fighter should have "5th gen" technologies

I am beginning to feel that DRDO may be the guilty party in piggybacking research programs or the operational requirements of the IAF.

The DRDO research should be separate from meeting operational requirements within timelines

Prof Prodyt Das - a controversial figure makes the following observation. Ideas like 4th gen and 5th gen are simply benchmarks in technology. There is no guarantee that a 3 gen aircraft will not shoot down a 4th or 5th gen aircraft. The technology level is not the same as effectiveness or lethality

On the contrary there is very high probability that a 4th or 5th generation aircraft will detect and shoot down the 3rd generation aircraft.

AESA, BVR with high ssk probability will out shoot a 3rd gen fighter.
Stealth will make it difficult to even detect it is there.
And how will a 3rd gen fighter get equipped with AESA and BVR?

The argument being made is a "kata or a country pistol is good enough when one gets close enough !"
The issue is it is going to be difficult to get near enough to fire a country pistol!!!

Good prof should stick to aerodynamics and leave fighting to military.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by NRao »

Good prof should stick to aerodynamics and leave fighting to military.
The good Prof is stating the most fundamental and the very obvious thing: On a given day, anything can happen. Which is true. But he has not touched on the topic of the chances of it happening - which in this case is not very complex. But I suspect it will not support his theories (I have not read his articles), so he perhaps opts not to discuss it? ?????
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: AMCA News and Discussions

Post by deejay »

shiv wrote:
deejay wrote:...
While reading this link I realised that the term AMCA is not used by IAF and IN. They call this project Next Generation Fighter Aircraft (NGFA).
Deejay in two separate links that I read along with the intense forum discussions recently I got the following information

1. When a MiG 21 replacement was needed by the IAF, it was DRDO that inserted the idea that FBW and composites should be part of the specs, not IAF

2. More recently, when the IAF wanted a follow on fighter - an MRCA, the IAF did not ask for 5th gen technology. It was the DRDO that inserted the idea that the new fighter should have "5th gen" technologies

I am beginning to feel that DRDO may be the guilty party in piggybacking research programs or the operational requirements of the IAF.

The DRDO research should be separate from meeting operational requirements within timelines

Prof Prodyt Das - a controversial figure makes the following observation. Ideas like 4th gen and 5th gen are simply benchmarks in technology. There is no guarantee that a 3 gen aircraft will not shoot down a 4th or 5th gen aircraft. The technology level is not the same as effectiveness or lethality
Shiv Sir, the Services want Military Capabilites (as in better flight performance etc) while DRDO wants Technological Capabilites (as in Technologies like Supercruise, Stealth, TVC, etc). What is Next Gen to 4th Gen Tejas but a 5th Gen AMCA. Essentially, they want one and the same thing but Services call it NGFA and the Research Labs call it AMCA.

IMO, it is absolutely OK.

Unfortunately, we have an "Us vs. Them" attitude between DRDO and the Services and also among people who comment / care for the developments. Folks have their biases and that comes in between their judgement and rationality. Who is "Us" and who is "them" depends on the persons backgrounds.

On various threads posters are finger pointing and calling our own folks from different organisation names - I recall Ramana Sir had put up a graphic of level of argument by what is being done by those arguing.

Commodore Balaji, becomes the boss and guess what some see in it - A slap on IAF's face. Really? I thought, wow, a military man heading a group of scientists and that is serious synergy. Synergy is what is needed. Not, name calling and divisive views.

DRDO is a research lab and its scientists want to add technological capabilities like Fifth Gen stuff. IAF is military service and its Air Marshals want to add features which make for a better fighter in a military sense. I say it is perfect - that is how it should be. Both groups laying out what they want and we work to reach that.

But in India we get into our ghettos and shout on top of our voice - You @#$%^&*. There goes cooperation out of the window. If only we work towards understanding the why's of the individual organisations, a lot of time wastage will be eliminated.

Next, what is quick timeline?

Fifth Generation is not just a USA thing anymore. It is a technological parasite which has acquired new host MIC's elsewhere. Do we really have a choice - militarily and hence technologically? By starting in 2015 we are aiming for 2030 (and I think this is being optimistic - development, research, proto types, pitfalls, change in requirements - shouldn't we change if something like R-60 to R-73 upgrade is needed and finally technological hangups, political hangups, may be a war in between, a non friendly GOI, etc. I forgot - engines).

If we start on 5th Gen in 2022 after Tejas Mk 2 when will we have the 5th Gen plane ready - by today's estimate of 15 years it will be 2037. I think 2030 is better.

There is no quick timeline. There is no shortcut - even if we import we will take 10 years if not 15. MMRCA proves it. The first RAFALE will be here in 2017 if it works out.

What guarantees are there that if we drop the 5th Gen specific requirements of Super Cruise, Thrust Vectoring, VLO design etc, will the AMCA / NGFA come out in lesser time?

The F35 development cycle, the PAK FA development cycle all prove that it is time taking for everyone and so will it be for us. The difference is that in the US we don't see the USAF or the USMC dissing the F35 development or the scientists dissing the American Forces and calling them names (Not to the level we have come down to here). I am sure, there would have been hugely frustrating moments but they back themselves.

R&D is not a known path. There are unknowns. Evolving tech is also an unknown. DRDO will face delays. Similarly, IAF Air Marshals of today will not foresee all things of 2030 or even 2025. If for eg: by 2025 the AESA upgrades or evolves in to something like 360 degree lock-shoot and 100% kill gene should the IAF ask for the change at that point? Should the DRDO accept the change and if they do, should it be used to blame DRDO for delays in FOC beyond 2030?
Locked