Bharat Rakshak

>>If you don't like him, don't indulge his blog. How he conducts HIS blog is HIS business. If DRDO guys believe he is violating copyright (watermarking pics doesn't proof copyright, it just is a proof of source) or sharing information, he should not, they can take it up with the MoD. National security will not be compromised for want of a blog.

Sorry Indranil, but that is a completely weird position to take and completely at odds with general principles of ethics and fairness, not to mention how things work out elsewhere. Lets take academics. Then would anyone credible ever go ahead and for any work - academic thesis or otherwise, take other peoples work and credit it as his own. Is that only ONES OWN business - just using the capitals as you used for emphasis? Or does it reflect on ones own ethics and those of the institution one represents? Will you or will you not be penalized? Now these are the standards everyone adheres by ...why let Aroor by for such shady practises?

Asking DRDO to run it with the MOD is equally pointless. We have had instances in the recent past of national newspapers attacking the integrity of a serving Army Chief and walking away scot free. And you think DRDO or any agency will take on the media, for unethical practises? This when they werent even allowed to defend themselves against the slander that went on before?

Second, the bigger point is not just the images and his watermarking, the point is this is how this man approaches ANY serious topic. In a brazen, unethical manner. As a public figure who tries for acclaim via such methods, it is perfectly valid to call out his sources and methods publicly, and critique them.

This business of dont visit his blog etc doesnt work either. Whether we indulge it or not, there are people who use this mans rubbish as valid information and are posting it on this forum and then analysis or whatever since they only know what Aroor selectively releases from information which is not his to begin with.

This also means that DRDO et al, who were increasingly sharing data with us, the common citizens and taxpayers, are being more wary. I know of public seminars for instance which were to have a lot of the data uploaded for public scrutiny. After this hero started his "controversial program revealed" sort of BS "scoops", all those efforts have been put on hold! His statements about IUSUAV etc - "controversial", "killing machine"...

This sort of rubbish needs to stop. For all those "discussing the AMCA" using the kind of stuff Aroor writes, and releases - with NO thought for what he is doing and why - except self glorification - well, then people need to understand what kind of people they are dealing with.

Here is one more example of Aroors idiocy, the kind that encourages ranting and all sorts of mistaken tut tutting. Its the perfect example of how Aroor uses selective data to make a claim that on the face of it sounds reasonable "India should synergize programs, use existing capabilities etc" while making rubbish claims.

http://livefist.blogspot.in/2012/05/ind ... anned.html

There's an appalling lack of resource and research synergy between HAL, NAL, the DRDO and the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), all of which appear to be either developing (or, in HAL's case, marketing) UAVs with areas of obvious technological overlap. Weirdly, beyond the meaningless paper seminars and lofty presentations, none of these laboratories or agencies actually cooperate to deliver even a single, capable unmanned system to the armed forces. All we ever get to hear about is new UAVs, or old UAVs with new names. Someone needs to do something about this.

And this joker calls himself a journalist! The fellow does not even know that there is a huge amount of "resource and research synergy" between HAL, NAL and ADA to the extent that common systems are being used across all programs. Specific labs are working on these systems and there is indeed an overarching objective to develop multiple classes of platforms to meet the huge UAV gap that exists in India today.

A good journalist, like Shukla, would actually meet NAL, HAL, DRDO etc people and trace out these linkages. Aroor instead uses his blog to propagate the idea that the keystone kops that run Indian establishments need his wisdom.

And of course, the comments follow. As regards HAL "marketing" UAVs, the organization actually has several programs for UAVs planned, but these have been deliberately kept in abeyance so as not to overlap with similar programs being run by ADE/ADA and NAL!

As regards airborne UAVs, it is ADE which is leading the UAV programs, with NAL, HAL and private industry supporting them. For meeting immediate tactical needs, HAL has a tieup with an Israeli firm. For UCAVs, it is ADA which is leading the program with participation from HAL and NAL plus ADE for flight controls. For engines, both HAL and GTRE are working on these.

These are but the basics, from open publications. Does this in anywhich way, sound uncoordinated? This idiot takes presentations of work which is actually being done, and dismisses them as "meaningless paper seminars and lofty presentations". The fool does not even know that most of the data presented in these from the Indian side, relates to actual programs and projects. He clearly lacks the technical education or even the acumen or drive to parse out actual details. Which a good journalist would do. Nor does he even understand that for security reasons, India is now holding these seminars etc within India, whilst ensuring that adequate participation gives junior scientists the opportunity to showcase their work and also understand newer topics!

Aroor uses the NAL HANSAs example of being unmanned - something NAL needs to do because it is the lynchpin of Indian efforts to go unmanned along with ADE (where did the Rustom airframe data come from, pray if not for NALs work with the Rutan planform) and tries to correlate it to the trainer fiasco, which is entirely another topic in itself. There, note, Aroor will not pin any sort of blame on the lack of adequate requirements in time, from the IAF, which will alienate him from his sources. Note the difference between Shukla and Aroor here. Or Tarmak and Aroor. The other two are not afraid to criticize even the Army, HAL etc despite their own origins in those organizations. This sort of selective rubbish, is another issue with Aroor. He tries to posture as some sort of knowledgeable insider about Indian industry. FFS, has this man even ever written a half serious analysis used by anyone worthwhile? Copy pasting other folks work and making rubbish claims is not journalism.

Sorry, but raising Aroors lack of ethics, and his shoddy standards of journalism is germane to this thread. People are using Aroors "insights" to talk about the AMCA, when the copy and paste master could not even distinguish between which inlet was being used for which program.

Asking people to not go to his blog, when his blog is quoted, is pointless.If people use a lousy journalists selective "leaks" to discuss a program and its objectives, then by all means, be aware of how lousy that journalist is!!

Fair enough arguments for and against erroor, but all that we aam folks would like to know is the images are genuine. it is okay he be rewarded or punished for his illegal pics, but it is important to know if they are genuine enough to be assured that is what in the public minds, AMCA would look like. Otherwise, there would be bigger disappointments for the aam eyes and ears.

No Victor sahab, it is not. The picture you have posted shows a cutout even for the engine. If you really want to observe carefully. Look at this high res picture for the same. You will be able to see the compressor blades for the right engine.

The length: breath ratio of most modern fighter engines is roughly 5:1.

Karan M, your friend has appeared in Katrina thread.

Hi Indranil, observing carefully, both Flanker and AMCA pics referred to show their engines--compressor blades to exhaust--at about 1/4 of the plane length (the Flanker's is actually a little shorter than the AMCA's). Both engines are also less than half the length from intake to exhaust and this is the current norm for twin-engine jets. Single-engine jets like the F-16, Gripen, MiG-21 tend to have engine:length ratios of 1:3. ie. they are more "compact".

One standout exception is the Rafale which also has about a 1:3 ratio in spite of being a twin-engine jet, a result of design objectives made possible by the compact M88. Rafale is essentially a single-engine design with two engines crammed in and having better performance than most comparable twin-engine jets. IMO a worthy objective for the AMCA as long as VLO is maintained as objective #1.

New AMCA Design from NAL ... by Livefist....

Is that supposed to be AMCA or just a generic 5th gen fighter. The last time someone claimed that a poster from HAL depicting a plane was actually a redesigned AMCA when it was just a stock image of stealth fighter. Some went so far to claim that HAL is collaborating with Korea since it appeared to look similar to Korea's 5th gen project. Anyone knows whether NAL is developing military aircrafts? I thought that is the purview of ADA & DRDO...

seems to have gained a lerx and the wing shape become more trapezoidal vs the old models seen. backside looks unchanged.

NAL is supposed to perform the role of TsAgi in russia and come up with the best aerodynamic designs and test options in their extensive facilities. so I wouldnt be surprised if multiple shapes are being tried out to downselect to 1 finally.

I would go with a big trazezoil wing, slim taper fuselage, low wing loading, boat shaped raptorkilla J20 nose and design the a/c around that. performance has to be built in from shape itself...stuff like sensors and avionics can always be changed later but lack of performance + world class in everything else is the fate of the Shornet.

^^^

If what you is true, they would be seriously considering carrier dynamics while designing this plane. There is a lot of data on why Rafale was designed the way it was because the same model would be used for Air Force & Navy requirements. We will have a need for 5th gen carrier aircrafts in the IN.

Is the rear sector stealth too much of an ask with little cost benefit in return? Except Raptor non of the current 5th gen designs incorporate rear stealth or IR signature suppression....

Did they change the shape of radome?

Yes, rear stealth for least IR needs a lot of research.. The EF2K approach for rear retractable jammer imho, is ideal solution for the future, besides anything comes up to reduce thermal signature [h20 inducing is the most simplest and expensive approach].

Most IR seekers have reduced range [WVR++ onlee].. hence my thought.

raptor is a smallish airframe with 2 massive engines . they can afford 15% loss of thrust and still display awesome climb, acceleration and turn performance.
no other a/c is so blessed with excess thrust.
the single engined birds with internal bays like JSF are obese looking as it is, they dont want to lose thrust.
the rest of 2 engine birds with internal bays are just about coming off drawing boards except the J20 and PAKFA. the J20 is a fat pig and the PAKFA which will eventually have raptor style engines is still a bigger airframe (heavier).

raptor is likely to remain a unique design for all time perhaps. but tail IR suppression is common in UCAVs.

yeah right.. B-2 Spirit and F-117 also had tail IR suppression but they are both subsonic so are all the UCAV designs IIRC. Raptor is probably the only stealth a/c with afterburner IR suppression..

F-35 has serated edges on its engine exhaust. That I think is for stealth in RF spectrum... dunno if it also helps in IR suppression?

That AMCA image is from the NAL directors report

As usual Aroor, being the slimy...err ...ethical journalist that he is, ripped it off and added a LIVEFIST watermark.

It says tests were conducted at 0.5M and 1.3 M, this configuration is stable at low aoa at half Mach.

Clearly, the configuration is not finalized yet and testing continues, despite Aroors attempts to confuse folks with "scoops"..

A far more far reaching contributor to AMCA and other programs can be found here:
http://www.nal.res.in/pages/ipaug12.htm#three

Read from the bottom. Three different facilities and capabilities, each with substantial ramifications.

I think it plays a role in noise reduction also. some of the newer B737 and the dreamliner have the serrated edges on rear edge of the engine cowl. it probably reduces air turbulence somewhat and hence noise.

about Aroor, his blog is nothing more than a set of scans of handouts from the vendors or some CAD images from his "sources" which mean little....tens of variations are likely to be studied for a major platform before finalization of a project costing $20b.

Awesome Karan M, for the FSS news. Good going there.. and hopefully configurable to our requirements.

how can it be a generic 5th gen fighter if NAL is the one doing the CFD analysis on it? Why'd they waste resources doing CFD analyses on a model that is just lifted from somewhere else? Aren't you aware that AMCA configuration studies have been on-going for more than a year now?

And who claimed that HAL (btw, it isn't HAL that is currently working on the AMCA, just to make it clear, its ADA and NAL) is collaborating with South Korea? I've never even heard such a rumour. NAL is routinely outsourced high end R&D work relating to military airplanes from both ADA and IAF as well.

You have missed the poster where HAL has displayed a 5th gen fighter and people were claiming it to be the AMCA. The plane was of course incorrect but that didn't help stem the rumors. Of course it was this http://www.livefist.blogspot.in/2012/03 ... fexpo.html

I take everything from aroor with a pinch of salt. So forgive me if it offended you

SaiK, the radome will retain the chine in all the configurations they study- its just that the angle from which the CFD model's image was taken is such that it appears that the chine is missing. Hence leading to guesses as to whether the radome shape has changed.

IMO, it is basically an addition of LERXs to the configuration that we've already seen here. The wing shape is the same, just that there are new LERXs from the intake to the forward fuselage.

You're being smart in taking anything that Aroor says with a pinch of salt. But apply your own common sense and you'll see that when he posts such a crude image that is obviously just lifted from the net and suggests that is a "stubby AMCA", you need to take a fistful of salt and even then you won't be able to swallow his tripe. HAL is not the agency working on the definition phase of the AMCA. They've got their resources tied up on a host of other projects and the only 5th gen project they're currently working on is the FGFA.

Thanks. So is it a project between NAL & DRDO? Perhaps ADA is also involved. GD mentioned NAL is playing the role of TsAgi in Russia. For the Su 27, it was the Sukhoi design bureau who cooked the design while TsAgi refined it further. Do we have a similar setup in India?

Karan M, could you check that link? It's not working for me. Thanks.

This is exactly what I feel. One more change is that the wingtips of the wings and the elevators have lost the curves on the leading edges. But aesthetically, I don't like those LERXs.

aesthetics aside, do such LERXs impact radar returns, since the edges are not aligned with the leading edge of the wings and elevators?

Wouldn't that be directly proportional to the area of surface that returns? Plus, the return depends on how the radar wave gets scattered. The more it get scattered away from the source, the better the RCS becomes is my understanding.

Plus you have this:
http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb38/15.11121601.pdf

afaik TsAgi came up with a basic form which sukhoi and mikoyan developed into the su27 and mig29. the famous "gromov flight test center" seems to be part of TsAgi.
http://www.tsagi.com/
http://www.tsagi.ru/eng/about/

HAL designed a/c wherein they are the prime mover imo are the Dhruv , Rudra, WSI and Sitara. any 12-t helo project or LOH are also their undertaking.

Tejas is ADA as lead, so is AMCA.

NAL only designed the Saras as a full plane in recent memory, but they provide guidance and test facilities to other agencies HAL/ADA/DRDO for sure.

Yes. Also, the LERXs will most probably follow the chine which might not be completely faceted and/or inclined to the longitudinal axis.

However, I don't know whether an entire LERX can be made out of composite material.

I think too much is being made of the LERXes - look at these models here - I'm betting that the so-called "LERXes" are just virtual representations of the fairings you see on the inlets of these scale models... I could be completely wrong, of course, but hey...

Old NAL Design Studies

I think 1/2 of AMCA work is done if we achieve the required Kaveri thrust in a few years from now, especially independently driven approach. [95-105kN or whatever the need that was/is being told to snecma]

indeed. the engine issue and fighter AESA radar are the two main roadblocks.

Pl. read what retd. A.Cmde. Khokar wrote in Vayu 4/12 "Tejas and Beyond",on the LCA.ADA,etc.We have so many incomplete testing with the LCA and even LCA Mk-2 is not assured of success because of the undefined as of now,redesign [arameters to accomodate a larger more powerful engine,and have pretensions of designing an AMCA when even in the FGFA it it basically a Russian deisgn that it being developed.The delays in IOC and confusion emanating from the DM's statements are also mentioned.

We have yet to test The LCA so he says for a cold-engine restart in the air,the gearbox is so heavily loaded with other eqpt. that it will not be able to "permit the min. wind milling rpm mandatory to restart in the air" (no idea if this has been done).Other problems.no documentation to assist IAF pilots /technicians.It has been outsourced for "1.5 cr. within 3 years".
There are many other details perhaps they can be posted later.His summing up.He bemoans the IAF being kept out as leaders in aviation projects and raws a comparison with the IN ,as it looks after all yards in shipbuilding with much grater success.

"The govt. needs to take a call whether they want to pander to the egos of a certain strata of the public sector tr promote knowhow and efficiency in the aviation sector.where our industry sadly lacks domestic and international credibility.We the taxpayers need to have say in this."

When we cannot even perfect an LCA (3+ tech) and have little to contribute to the FGFA,it is ludicrous of the ADA to imagine that they will succeed where they have yet to succeed with the LCA!

Philip saar,

So what should we do? We don't know how to build anything. So stop trying. Just continue financing Russia's design bureaus?

Maybe we need to swallow the fact that we have missed the bus on 4th & 5th gen, drop the LCA, LCA2, FGFA and focus all our resources and everything we have learned on making AMCA a 6th gen warplane by 2025-30. Buy few sqdns PAKFA off the shelf and put $20-30 billion into Kaveri, AESA and PGMs. Anything short of that means we are p!ssing into a hurricane--it'll have no effect.

Absolutely not! If you have kept track of the LCA's tortured development,in the thread not very long ago there was the official announcement that the IOC would be delayed ab another year (2013) and that the MOD had rejected the IAF's desire to head the project preferring instead the "time-tested" method in vogue as of now of finding a joker from the recruitment boards! What successes have the "time-tested" methods delivered? The ACmde. has recommended handing over the reins of uch projects toi the end-user,the IAF as has been done with naval projects if we truly want results.



This is what I wrote..


In the report (I think in the Ind. Exp.) saying that the IAF's wish had been rejected,and in the article by the A Cmde. in Vayu,the comparison is made with the IN who havehad the most success of the three servcies in indigenisation,because they run the shipyards! Here an inexperienced outfit called the ADA which as never developed any aircraft,runs the intensely complex LCA project,is decades overdue even for the underpowered Mk-1 version and has ambitions to develop an AMCA! IS the taxpayers good money being deliberately thrown down the drain to fund scamsters? In the LCA thread,one member said that CWG scamster Kalmadi allegedly had tried to get a bill passed to kill the LCA.

I repeat what my AM,former VCoAS said that the govt./we the people are the owners and stakeholders of the LCA an defence projects,and we must give these projects true support not lip service or indifference,allowing for unaccountability and medicority to flourish,but monitor them and hire and fire if need be if results are not forthcoming.In addition unless the end-user runs the projects there will always be a war between PSUs and babus and the armed forces.The MOD would like the status quo to continue where very little real success is achieved as its suits scamsters and firang arms lobyists.It is so clear that the "time-tested" method of running projects by the babus has failed us,therefopre it is past time to hand over our PSUs to the forces to lead with capable project managers picked for the task.This must also see Indian pvt. industry getting into the act.But can such a wimp of a regime be so bold and courageous to implement the findings of the various committees that have reported on the DRDO's failings?

PS:Victor,there is still time for us to focus on the Indian version of the FGFA,that is if we want changes from the basic Russian design (but will come at great cost).With FGFA 5th-gen experience,we can develop a concept for the AMCA.What gives me more hope is the little reported development of the UCAV AURA (reportedly being managed with the lessons of the LCA in mind),as more and more air forces worldwide are using UCAVs instead of manned aircrat in limited conflicts and anti-terror ops.The experience we've developed on the LCA can well be utilised in such UCAV projects.The big Q is,do we need another highly expensive manned AMCA in the future,ven before we have indcuted the 5th-gen FGFA first and seen the results? Older gen aircraft are still maiking their mark with the development of LR PGMs,which have given them a new lease of life.

I feel that we must not be too ambitious and first succeed with equally vital projects like the IJT and basic trainer which are the foundation for training our pilots.Reports have found that many of our crashes were due to inadequately trained pilots,nd the current training regie where actual time in the air has been drastically cut short is detrimental to the IAF.How do we expect an ill-trained pilot to cope when he is amde to jump from a few hours from the cockpit of a basic trainer ,then into an obsolete Kiran-hopefully a Hawk and then into a modern 4++ Rafale or SU-30MKI,leave alone the FGFA ?

Forget about LCA and LCA Mk2 and AMCA. That way lies LCA in 2015 (if we are lucky), LCA Mk2 in 2022 (if we are lucky) and AMCA in 2030 (again if we are lucky).

Timelines are important. Some years back I would have stoutly defended ADA/HAL on LCA timelines. Now the LCA is too late. IOC-2 in 2013 mid (willing to bet that will slip to end 2013) and FOC in 2014 end (willing to bet that will slip to 2015) makes it very late indeed. And that is just LCA Mk1. I think ADA/HAL are being waaaaay to ambitious in trying to get 3 different programs out of the door.

The entire reasoning behind a deadline , any deadline is to ensure that tasks are completed before or on it , we seem to have made it fashionable to push deadlines and extend them almost all the time and all spheres of Govt. work.

I understand the challenges that HAL/ADA faced with LCA and continues to face with AMCA , add to that the shifting of goal posts wrt ASQR cannot have helped their cause , hence the over ambitious specs for AMCA (at least in some spheres) . I for one would hope that HAL makes their own very conservative estimate for AMCA and sticks to it , regardless of pressure from those who know nothing about tech. development cycle , but once a deadline is given it should be solid and not subject to being pushed.

The only good thing I can see coming out of this new J-31 design (which in some ways does remind me of the AMCA too!) is that it will really alarm the IAF. Since this is a much smaller fighter than the J-20, and equipped with two RD-93 size engines, it will be very likely that the PAF will be very interested in acquiring this type.

And seeing both the PAF and PLAAF likely to be equipped with this new type in another 10 years or so will give the IAF the necessary impetus and motivation to put all their backing into the AMCA project. Not the lack-luster support and wishing to heaven that the LCA just died and they could import a foreign bird type attitude that the IAF displayed in the initial stage of the LCA program. If the IAF intends to see the AMCA operational, they'll need to give sensible requirements in their ASR, rather than technology that is not present on even the PAK-FA or F-22/F-35. And the DRDO must not, at any cost, take the AMCA as a science project, rather as an urgent national project that has to be delivered on time without any excuses given. The initial AMCA may well be a Mk1, but the IAF must take it, not grudgingly but in the spirit of ensuring that the AMCA matures in time and eventually gets to the brochure specs that the IAF dreams of. And the DRDO must aim to deliver it on time, be hard nosed and pragmatic in ensuring that the timelines are met at any cost. If this program fails to deliver on time, there will be absolutely no excuse, only proof that they've not learnt the lessons from the Tejas program.

Which is why, when I see such never-before attempted technologies like the one's I've quoted, I feel that they're setting themselves up for too much to chew on..for instance, they're aping the F-35 which lacks the HUD and instead displays all data onto the HMD, even night vision data from fuselage mounted cameras.

But even on the F-35, the HMD has had technical issues that have been very difficult to sort out. The images are jittery, there are latency issues when the pilot moves his head and the short term solution they're looking at is to simply move the HMD's imagery onto one of the Head-Down Displays. Basically, costly fixes for solving a problem that should've never really arisen in the first place.

Now, what is the big benefit that ADA/DRDO or the IAF sees in eliminating the HUD? Why can't the IAF do with a wider FoV HUD that is frameless (ala Rafale or the PAK-FA)? We've now got to the level where CSIO, a DRDO lab can design and manufacture our very own HUD, so the aim must be to improve on its symbology visibility and readability specs and FoV, not on dumping it altogether just because some other program decided that HUD wasn't useful. We've got Samtel that can hopefully design a HMD in collaboration with Thales to improve on the TopOwl-F that the IN is getting for the MiG-29Ks. Improve iteratively on something that you have a base for, rather than just jumping onto the next bandwagon because someone said it was the next generation technology.

Or if the IAF (or DRDO) absolutely insists because they're more besotted with brochure specs than practical realities, then this be something that needs to be developed on a different schedule and be integrated with the AMCA whenever it is ready, say for the second or third batch or even the Mid-Life Update. I can bet the IAF's spanking new MRCAs won't feature no HUD even when they reach the end of their service lives. So why set such an unrealistic goal for the AMCA and handicap it right at the beginning to look like a research project destined to be in development for far too long?

I fervently hope that they look to prove out the more exotic sounding technologies that don't necessarily add too much in practical terms later in the program or dump them altogether. The initial goal must be to prove out only the critical technologies required for the AMCA and those that are within reach - and many of the technologies listed in the image are within reach too and should be pursued with vigour. Howver, cost will be a factor that should also never be forgotten. the IAF won't be able to afford too many $100 million+ AMCAs when they'd have spent tens of billions on the Rafale and the PAK-FA.

I can bet the J-20 and the J-31 don't feature ANY of the technologies that have been listed for the AMCA below. I just wish sane minds prevail in this matter.

Livefist- old article- official wishlist of AMCA

All these technologies must be tried out on MK3 platform which should be a twin engined core - and must be indic one.

Since this is a much smaller fighter than the J-20, and equipped with two RD-93 size engines, it will be very likely that the PAF will be very interested in acquiring this type.

the thought had crossed my mind the instant I saw the first pic. but being a sickular intellectual I didnt want to hurt minority sentiments by expressing that thought openly I am sure certain web forums are already drawing up induction plans and paint schemes.

the RD-93 engines though seem to be just a temporary solution, looking at the gap between the engine nozzle and the panels above and below it. perhaps they plan a WS-13 or a higher thrust engine. Anyhow, the PAF and Paki fanboys will be fervently hoping that this is the cheap 5th gen fighter that they can acquire. Since J-20 is too large for them, F-35 too expensive and unlikely to be sold to them, they have no option but to hold out for this J-31, even if its a twin-engined fighter and the PAF has historically never flown twin engine fighters.