Is the AMCA a pipe dream that will become a dead Albatross?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2015 10:22

How many can we afford simultaneously? We're supposed to be still pursuing the FGFA,LCA MK1 and 2,plus are still at it with the BTT,IJT,etc.! From all available official info.the AMCA's foundation rests upon the success of the LCA Mk-2. Let's not forget that even the underpowered ,under-performing Mk-1 that the IAF was forced to buy hasn't even entered service and been put through its paces. As Shiv has listed,where are the exotic tech. components going to come from? PC Sorcar and Co.? We've had such stirring statements from a galaxy of DRDO boffins over the years about the various indigenous weapon systems being developed.How many of them have actually been inducted into service,in a reasonable timeframe,at a reasonable cost and have had a reasonable reliability factor?

The core of the AMCA is the engine.It was so for the HF-24,,is for the LCA and will be for the AMCA. Until that element is clearly defined,acquired with full after sales support/TOT,with no strings attached,we will have repeated our past mistakes ad nauseum. "AMCA Tall Tales" will be better understood and believed in,if LCA MK-2 succeeds.

PS:I read today that the DRDO has finally got a new chief,after an absence of 4 months! The new govt. is certainly taking some critical decisions,therein lies the hope.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 06 Jul 2015 10:37

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/07/f ... ve-in.html

As per the last para it seems Khan is not going to help with GE development to suit AMCA.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2015 11:11

Some XCpts. from the above report/link.Tx.Yag.

In 2010, the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which manages the Tejas programme, chose GE over Eurojet to supply 99 engines for the Tejas Mark II. Of these, 16 are being delivered fully-built, so that ADA can build prototypes of the Mark II fighter for ground and flight test programmes.

Meanwhile, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) will establish a facility to manufacture the remaining 83 engines in Bengaluru. With the Indian Air Force (IAF) and navy likely to order at least 160 Tejas Mark II fighters, the HAL facility could eventually build about 700 engines (assuming a fighter uses 3.5 engines in its service life)......

Not everyone believes the Tejas Mark II, powered by the F-414, is a good idea. Aerospace experts like Pushpinder Singh of Vayu Magazine say the benefits of the more powerful F-414 would be negated by its additional weight and the re-design of the Tejas that they say will be needed to accommodate the engine.

Experts also argue the Tejas’ constricted air intake will prevent the F-414 from sucking in the air it requires, even with extensive redesign. In that case, the engine would not deliver its rated 98 kN thrust.

Rejecting this view, GE and ADA officials say they will accommodate the F-414 without problem or extensive redesign, and that it will perform to its designed potential.

While GE has bagged the deal to supply India the F-414, an even bigger prize could prove elusive --- the supply of a more powerful version of the F-414 for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation medium fighter that ADA plans to develop, with the IAF standing ready to buy 200.

As this blog reported (June 1, “Carter to face Indian demand for engine technology”) the defence ministry has asked the United States to let the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) work with GE in jointly upgrading the F-414 to a rating of 110 KN of peak power. ADA believes the AMCA needs 220 kN of peak power from its twin engines.

This is welcomed by GE, which had earlier worked for the US Navy on upgrading the F-414 to a 116 kN engine designated F-414 Enhanced Engine. With that project now shelved, GE would like to see it revived with Indian partnership, funding and a large assured market.

Yet, Washington is stonewalling the Indian request, even though the two countries had established a “joint working group” to explore cooperation in engine design during President Obama’s visit to India in January.

A disappointed Indian defence ministry is now issuing a global tender, inviting aero engine firms to co-develop a suitable engine with the DRDO.

Senior defence ministry sources say that Eurojet, the European consortium whose EJ200 engine lost out to GE’s F-414 in the contest to power the Tejas Mark II, has satisfied the DRDO it can uprate the EJ200 to 110 kN.

Snecma, the French company that builds the Rafale’s M-88 engine, will also be issued a tender. However the M-88, which currently generates 75 kN of thrust, cannot be uprated beyond 105 kN.

“Fighters are designed around a pre-selected engine. We will issue the tender quickly and select an engine for the AMCA so that the programme does not get delayed. If Washington chooses to deny India engine technology by preventing GE from working with the DRDO, that will have its own implications”, says a top defence ministry official.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2015 11:37

I am not sure why they would do the same mistake twice , go for a US engine and then claim we didnt foresee sanction coming

Its better to go for Snecma engine M88 and build around it as with Rafale we would have it any ways.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 06 Jul 2015 11:46

Austin wrote:I am not sure why they would do the same mistake twice , go for a US engine and then claim we didnt foresee sanction coming

Its better to go for Snecma engine M88 and build around it as with Rafale we would have it any ways.

Agree
Having both LCA and AMCA based on engine from one country seems very risky and similar to say having all the fighters from one country.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2015 12:11

shiv wrote:In 2015 - the year 2021 is just 6 years away. If in 2020. DRDO say "the first flight will be in late 2021 or early 2022 we will curse but wait and say "Hey - just a few months delay"

By June 2022 if the plane has not flown we know there is a delay. Promise no 1 would have already been broken and so on

This is what I do not want to see happening with AMCA. This is exactly what happened with LCA - but LCA had the excuse that we were developing new technology which is always risk and delay prone. Why are we taking yet another risk and delay prone route trying to make a system as critical and complex as a combat aircraft with technology that we do not have today? I will soon put up a video of the long and tortuous route taken by various countries to develop VTOL aircraft. But every one of these was a research project, not a dedicated aircraft project. When the research was done the final aircraft arrived. No timeline promises were made about productionalizing what was a research subject

Why does DRDO club research with a dedicated combat aircraft project?

DRDO does not have the luxury of runnning a Research Plane/X Plane program to test and validate technology that then goes into Production Aircraft Programs like AMCA , technology like Diamaond Wing, Stealth TVC that need to be validated with real world flying data beyond wind tunnel and CFD.

That was the point I made few pages earlier and the answer I got was every things would be validated on AMCA.

AMCA will be a new challange and it wont be any less daunting then Tejas , for eg the F-22 challenge was as good as the last teens built and the IOC they got was in 2005 and YF-22 itself won in 1991 , same goes for PAK-FA where the experience of Sukhoi was as good as the Flanker and they take about 12 years to get to IOC if they achieve it in 2016 as they claim.

With so many new challenges , I expect ADA job wont be easier from FSED to IOC i would say 13-15 years is what they would need . The goal should also be to make it as sanction proof as possible even if it means using N-1 technology and getting Indian stuff as soon as possible and have lower specs

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 06 Jul 2015 14:25

We need to look at the tremendous AD capability with PLA also which cannot be discounted. Unlike pakistan which focuses against low level protection exclusively. Lets forget the PLAGF for the moment, the PLAAAF roughly deploys an entire AD Div with each of its MRAF's. Thats an SAM Bde and two AD Bde, some additionally deploy indep SAM Regts also. Their reserves also have upto 12 AD divs....

We will have to fight our way through every time for any meaningful deep strikes. A stealthy UAV under these circumstances could also do the job if the capability is to drop 2 x 1000 pound bombs at most. These can be built cheap and accrue lesser standing forces with similar capacity. We need to either cancel the FGFA or AMCA.

What is the max airframe hours on our flanker fleet and can they stay on till 2040 or thereabouts instead of these FGFA..

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jul 2015 14:37

shiv wrote:2.5 ton internal carriage is too small. (Just because JSF is also similar means nothing. We are not USA.) This plane can only have a niche role. Jaguars, Mirages and MiG 29s can carry 4-6 tons and/or 6 or more AAMs

You're making a basic error by measuring the internal carriage in terms of 'tonnage'. Its an outdated concept. Back in WWII, bombers could expend a 100 ton in bombs in taking out a single bridge. Today, you could do that in a single sortie with a single LGB.

For the AMCA what is more relevant is the numbers it can carry. And for an SDB-type munition, that can be upto 12 weapons (though more likely 8 to 10). A well placed 125kg glide bomb can take out an FOL dump or a radar site just as effectively as a 1000kg bomb. And in the unusual conditions where an JSOW/Kh-38 type heavy stand-off weapon (or NSM/Kh-35 type AShM) is necessary, we have other platforms that can be opted for.

On top of this there are a whole host of issues that bother me.
1. Imported engine
2. I see no chance of any thrust vectoring being developed for this engine. I hope they dismiss the idea openly and officially rather than making wishy washy comments saying 'It will be difficult and will extend timelines"
3. We have no supersonic wind tunnel in India. Every time we need to do a supersonic wind tunnel test or a vertical wind tunnel test a model will have to go abroad after making the necessary time slot bookings and payments. If minor fixes are requires they will have to be done in India and the model shipped back abroad. Since tests can't be done in house at the drop of a hat delays are inevitable. CAD can go only so far as IJT showed us.
4. To my knowledge we have no radar anechoic testing facilities to test for stealth. This will be needed time and again and any structural modifications can have a blowback effect on aerodynamics and then the same wind tunnel issues crop up for testing with the new modified configuration
5. They are talking about supercruise. I personally think it is unnecessary but if they chase after this mirage we are adding a whole host of skin and other structural issues apart from more supersonic wind tunnel testing

The alternative is a fleet dominated by entirely foreign aircraft.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jul 2015 15:29

Couple of points here -

1. I haven't seen the RFP issued by DRDO but its fair assumption that there was a substantial amount of ToT involved (that too from a next gen variant of the engine). I doubt the Brits would be much more forthcoming when it comes to their crown jewels (the EJ-200 is primarily a Rolls Royce plc design).

2. There is a 10kN difference (20kN overall) between the baseline variants of the EJ-200 & F414, and there will likely continue to be a similar difference between their 'growth' models too. And if the history of the F-35 not to mention that of the LCA, ALH, LCH, IJT, is any evidence, managing weight growth will be a major challenge for the program. The aircraft will need every little bit of extra thrust it can manage.

3. Unlike the Europeans, the US is making major 'grassroot' investments in their military engine technology (ADVENT/AETD), a significant portion of which will flow into F414 derivatives, opening a big technology gap (as opposed just a thrust differential) vis a vis the EJ-200.

4. The AMCA will enter service only by 2030. By the time, the Indian GDP will be the third largest in the world (closing in on the US), with China likely the world's predominant economic and military power. Unless China implodes in the years leading up to that, sanctions are a complete non-starter. US sanctions at least. The Europeans have a much less adversarial relationship with China.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 16:18

Viv S wrote:[
You're making a basic error by measuring the internal carriage in terms of 'tonnage'. Its an outdated concept. Back in WWII, bombers could expend a 100 ton in bombs in taking out a single bridge. Today, you could do that in a single sortie with a single LGB.

For the AMCA what is more relevant is the numbers it can carry. And for an SDB-type munition, that can be upto 12 weapons (though more likely 8 to 10). A well placed 125kg glide bomb can take out an FOL dump or a radar site just as effectively as a 1000kg bomb. And in the unusual conditions where an JSOW/Kh-38 type heavy stand-off weapon (or NSM/Kh-35 type AShM) is necessary, we have other platforms that can be opted for.

LOL! These are all rationalizations invented after bomb loads became small because money is being poured into F-35. Most of the damage since LGBs came into common use (Kosovo/Iraq/Afgh/Iraq/Syria/Palestine/Libya) have been done by unstealthy aircraft carrying much heavier and a larger number of smart bombs than the puny ones this theory tries to make people swallow. We are building American style aircraft and quoting American sourced information to support what works for American wars where targeting is done by multiple platforms in the sky and in space and air dominance maintained by unstealthy fighters in large numbers over distant foreign shores. It is this American hawa that suffuses our thoughts and stops us from thinking.

The snake oil of 5.56 mm ammunition set back the world's armies for 30 years until jihadis showed that they need something more. This 125 kg stuff should be taken with 975 kg of salt

Furthermore there is no near term rejection of heavy dumb bombs or bombs that can disperse large numbers of bomblets

The alternative is a fleet dominated by entirely foreign aircraft.

This is complete nonsense. We could build a 4.5 gen medium fighter without the sort of dependence the AMCA is going to guarantee. But we have decided to subsume our security to the whims of international goodwill

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 16:27

Viv S wrote: 4. The AMCA will enter service only by 2030.

Source for this guesstimate? Any official statement? Last I heard AMCA was to come by 2025. You have given them another 5 years.

In the link below the outgoing ADA chief says "After 2025" I admit 2030 is after 2025 but so is 2035

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 005_1.html

On ADA's drawing board are two major projects that are critical for the IAF's future: The Tejas Mark II, with a powerful new engine and advanced avionics; and the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation fighter that will enter IAF service after 2025

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Jul 2015 16:48

^^The last claim was by Saraswat that AMCA will be "delivered" in 12-15 years. This was in 2013.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jul 2015 17:23

shiv wrote:LOL! These are all rationalizations invented after bomb loads became small because money is being poured into F-35.

Most of the damage since LGBs came into common use (Kosovo/Iraq/Afgh/Iraq/Syria/Palestine/Libya) have been done by unstealthy aircraft carrying much heavier and a larger number of smart bombs than the puny ones this theory tries to make people swallow.

You perhaps need acquaint yourself with the history of the program. The SDB will have been operational on the F-22 for a full decade by the time the type is certified on the F-35.

Most of the damage before LGBs came into common use was by unstealthy aircraft employing heaps of dumb bombs. So what? It didn't stop the PGMs from becoming a staple for air-to-ground missions.

We are building American style aircraft and quoting American sourced information to support what works for American wars where targeting is done by multiple platforms in the sky and in space and air dominance maintained by unstealthy fighters in large numbers over distant foreign shores. It is this American hawa that suffuses our thoughts and stops us from thinking.

All the information dominance happens at a strategic level. At the tactical level, is still about the the pilot, aircraft, LDP and the PGM. And this is how everybody does it, including the Brits, French and now the Russians & Chinese. The F-35 introduces a superior of automation & target discrimination into the mix, but the fundamental principle has remained the same.

The snake oil of 5.56 mm ammunition set back the world's armies for 30 years until jihadis showed that they need something more. This 125 kg stuff should be taken with 975 kg of salt

- The Russians were fighting the jihadi' long before the NATO & ISAF rolled around. Would you care to guess what calibre the latest Russian assault rifle is chambered for?

- The vast majority of strike missions/CAS over the last two decades, has involved the ubiquitous 500lb Mk82. So just what exactly makes a 220kg bomb more than adequate, but a 125kg weapon an absolute no-no? (Never mind the fact that you can carry four times as many of the latter on the same hard-point.)

Furthermore there is no near term rejection of heavy dumb bombs or bombs that can disperse large numbers of bomblets

This is complete nonsense. We could build a 4.5 gen medium fighter without the sort of dependence the AMCA is going to guarantee. But we have decided to subsume our security to the whims of international goodwill

Nobody that's flying a sortie costing $15-20,000/hr potentially risking a $50-100 million dollar fighter jet in combat, will try to cut corners at the last stage by eschewing a guidance kit for the bombs.

As to the other part, what will this 4.5 gen medium fighter do that our 4.5 gen light fighter won't? Not to mention our domestically built 4.5 gen heavy fighter (220 or so already delivered).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jul 2015 17:38

LOL! These are all rationalizations invented after bomb loads became small because money is being poured into F-35. Most of the damage since LGBs came into common use (Kosovo/Iraq/Afgh/Iraq/Syria/Palestine/Libya) have been done by unstealthy aircraft carrying much heavier and a larger number of smart bombs than the puny ones this theory tries to make people swallow.

PGM development was a process that has taken decades to deliver a capability that exists today and will continue to evolve. As the bomber guys says, we have gone from "sorties per target" to " targets per sorties", as the PGM's have become more and more accurate (and this is not totally due to the PGM's as I'll try to explain later), the size has shrunk for some missions. If you can take out a radar with an SDB or SDBII instead of a JDAM, you will do so because you can pack more of those weapons regardless of whether you pack them o an F-35, F-22 or the F-15 Strike Eagle. Simply put, if your PGM's are accurate enough (CEP's have fallen even for the JDAM from 11-13 m to below 10m, and for the SDB they are close to 40% of that) and you can kill a target with a smaller weapon you will enjoy much higher tactical flexibility, and can execute your strike campaign better, faster and with more lethality. The very requirements for these munitions came into being because sensor and targeting technology had gotten advanced to a point that you could get results with smaller munitions. The P in PGM's has gotten better over time, and the latest SDBII has a tri-mode seeker instead of a strap on GPS kit that the 1000 pounders possess. Ultimately, the operators (the customers developing it) want the ability of the munition to destroy a target and if a smaller one can do it they will sign off on it. Both the SDBI and SDBII are proving this capability out (The former has already proven it while the II is doing it quite well at the moment as it enters full rate production). The bomb size, and the bombs per target required were extremely high prior to the introduction of PGM's in the Gulf War (Where they were still used in a minority)..even older aircraft have evolved due to this requirement and look at how the bombers like the B-2 deploy for example. They simply strike a lot lot many more targets per long sortie now then they did when they were introduced.

As far as "justifying the F-35 bit" goes, the SDB was designed prior to the JSF, the SDBII was designed for the whole tactical fleet and the F-35 isnt even one of the platforms it is introduced on in the first wave. The trend is rather clear, for all targets that are not hardened PGM's have come to a point where the sensor accuracy (how you guide the PGMs i.e the ability of your radar, or EO system to geolocate and pass on the track), the data links to weapons, the seekers on these weapons (Dual mode seeker and Tri-Mode seekers) and the wing kits have upped their accuracy and have allowed their operators to shrink the warhead requirements for some missions down...This trend will continue for all but the larger bunker buster types..and even then instead of going from 2000 to 5000, or 5000 to 10,000 you will most likely retain the weight class and add a booster to the back...

The biggest advantage of the SDB and SDBII, and similar weapons and class is that they give the warfighter the tactical flexibility to deploy its strike assets and divert them for CAS if need be..Try using the 2000 pound bomb for CAS...

Developers and operators of PGM's constantly seek advancements in the accuracy because it translates to a significant tactical advantage during operations to a degree where the initial PGM entry into the CONOPS created a strategic advantage that was not dissimilar from the one created by tactics nukes a few decades prior. The JDAM was a traditional first generation fire and forget PGM..It morphed B-2 tactics as opposed to operating 'dumb' bombs...

See this if interested -

Since the JDAM, you have technology come aboard that allows for even higher capability, more accuracy, multiple targeting options with dual and tri-mode seekers and longer ranges even for glide weapons. Expect the LRS-B to be smaller than the B-1 and B-52 it replaces because of both the current PGM options and the trend towards the future.

Also note that all stealth fighters can carry bombs externally..Internal payloads will be used for the penetrating missions where your targets have to earn their way into the planning..Mobile Radar sites, IAD networks, mobile C2C, and a few fixed targets that you cannot take out with cruise missiles (have to discriminate real ones from decoys for example)...As you open up and sanitize the battlespace larger payloads can be incorporated whether that is after the first few initial strikes against a low threat target or after a considerable pounding over time against a near peer. Nations have learnt from the PGM campaigns in Iraq and the balkans...If you read some of the ONI reports modern decoys even do an excellent job at simulating the RF signatures...you will most likely have a lot of confusion even in fixed targets as a lot of decoys will be employed..Those that are looking into this, and have the serious cash to do something about it are actually formulating requirements based on the fact that you'll simply need more targets to be taken out because of these things and that calls for (and highlights the importance of) having the ability to destroy more targets per sortie, be it form an F-35 or F-22 penetrating a contested or denied environment, or be it an F-15E attacking pop up targets or supporting the troops on the ground.

Another advantage the SDBI and II class weapons coupled to stealth platforms do is the range aspect..While not being expensive enough because of a turbojet, they can still give you between 60 - 100 km range (depending upon version) because the stealth fleet can fly at medium altitudes on the fringe of the air-defenses and lob them across preferably at supersonic speeds...As opposed to a non-internal bay aircraft that would have to fly really low, really fast and launch the same weapon from a lot lot (think multiples) closer with all the mission planning and support burden that comes along with that (tankers, support aircraft, SEAD_massage, Electronic Attack etc).

If the AMCA can lob 6-8 SDB class weapons at Mach 1.2 from 60 Km's away and have the ability to self escort (provided by its Stealth, EW protection and the situational awareness afforded to it), it would be a tremendous leap in capability. This is the direction modern fighter designs will head towards, be it those designed by the South Koreans, japanese, Turkish or India.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 06 Jul 2015 17:43

shiv wrote:
Viv S wrote: 4. The AMCA will enter service only by 2030.
Source for this guesstimate? Any official statement? Last I heard AMCA was to come by 2025. You have given them another 5 years.

The Tejas Mk2 will IOC no earlier than 2022. If we can have the AMCA by 2025, why bother? Fact is, its highly unlikely that a modern fighter jet can go from prototype to service in less than a decade. The sole exception was the (relatively unambitious) Super Hornet which took 5 years.

Given our current core competencies and experience, if they can deliver it by 2030, it'll be job well done.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Jul 2015 17:46

small diameter bombs will be used the f-18 also not just the f-35.

it was developed because:

a. they want to drop it up to 40 nautical miles from the target

-and-

b. lighten the plane load for obvious advantages.

plus there is a contract released to develop guidance to hit a moving target. just not that much need for a 500lb'er to hit a moving target. a 250 lb will do just as well.

Dear Doctor, why go big and slice the patient open when you can use a small diameter hole and insert a 'scope and assorted surgical tools? less wear and tear on the patient I would think. Go modern and get with the program.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 18:17

TSJones wrote: Dear Doctor, why go big and slice the patient open when you can use a small diameter hole and insert a 'scope and assorted surgical tools? less wear and tear on the patient I would think. Go modern and get with the program.

Jonesy. Please don't use medical analogies - especially bad ones. Make keyholes to take out an 8 inch uterus/ovary with cancer. Since the hole is 1/2 in and the tumour 8 inches, morcellate it with a grinder and put it in a bag and pull it out. Then get one patient whose tumor recurs in the wound and pay 100 million dollars as damages. That is happening right now in the land of milk and honey

Moral of story" Do what is right. Not what is fashionable."

"Small diameter bombs" are a concept that came up only because of the F-35's piddly internal carriage. Making them go 40 km is to release them high up and make them good aerodynamically. And make the guidance good. They don't have to be SDBs. How does the US make guidance good? A fleet of UAVs and AWACS supported by a large fleet of refuellers and a plethora of satellites. And for a plane to release them high up (say 40,000 feet) that plane has to be really stealthy and/or protected by other fighters and robust ECM/ECCM. The US is already there. It makes sense for the US

Like I said Indian brains are clouded by American methods. And that is true for medicine as well but that would be a digression. It has been that way ever since America began to dominate the world of technology and money.

Indians need to do what WE can do. Not what America does.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 18:33

What amazes me is the casual manner in which people reasure themselves that "something will happen by X date"

Now I am being reassured that the AMCA will appear by 2030 - a full 45 years after the F 117. It will have no indigenous engine. India currently does not have any of the fancy "small diameter bombs" that I am being reassured will work very well with the AMCA. India does not even have a program to develop such bombs. heck Add that to the other things we don't have - no supersonic wind tunnel. No vertical wind tunnel. No radar anechoic test facilities. Since we are getting all this from abroad, guess what I am sure we can import the Small diameter bombs as well. What the heck?

And I am being told that this is the way to make "indigenous stuff" that will reduce dependence on imports

Really?

Engine - imported
Flight data - imported from foreign wind tunnel tests
Small diameter bombs? Where are they going to come from?

When our minds are totally dependent on imported ideas from the US we are not going to be independent of sanctions and armtwisting anytime soon.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jul 2015 18:43

"Small diameter bombs" are a concept that came up only because of the F-35's piddly internal carriage.

Small diameter bomb requirement existed because of multiple reasons, the primary one was the fact that the technology in PGM's had advanced to a point where you could shrink CEP's considerably over the 1980's technology allowing you to attack similar targets with smaller bombs as opposed to larger bombs of the past. This gives you the tactical flexibility to take out plenty of targets that do not need the JDAM or even the 500 pound bomb...The SDB was in no way the only program that tackled this but the effort was a result of hundreds of Millions invested by AFRL over the years under the Miniaturize Munition initiatives..From LOCASS, to LOCASS-M, to SDB were all studied with the SDB I and II surviving the eventual budget axe that fell on some of these programs. As a result, you can carry many more bombs and this gives the strike fighter be it a stealth strike fighter, or a non stealthy strike figther, or a stealth fighter carrying both an internal and external payload - the ability to attack many more targets per sortie than was previously possible. The enabler was the fact that you could still kill a desired target with an SDB as opposed to a 500 lb or 1000 lb bomb..the SDBI and SDBII OPEVAL's have and will prove that..SDB and SDB type weapons arent going to stay just in the US, the UK is designing the SPEAR family because of this very advancement in technology and capability..Most with the capability will also follow and do so, as long as they can develop something with high accuracy..It makes a lot of sense regardless of whether you operate a stealth fighter or a non-stealth fighter...The US has led the PGM development but it doesnt have a monopoly over it..The Chinese I believe have already shown SDB class weapons at their trade shows, and I believe Karan posted something earlier about India also developing smaller munitions..As I said, if you can get the accuracy up compared to a Gen. I JDAM for example, you can open up the possibility. The SDB and SDBII do just that with a signifcantly more accurate GPS setup compared to block I JDAM, and a tri mode seeker on the latter that has enough accuracy and discrimination to attack a moving target. Advances in GPS, INS and multi mode seekers have allowed for that i.e. allowed 250 pound and 500 pound weapons to take over many missions where 1000 pounds were deployed earlier, and for 2000 lb weapons of the future to pack in a lot more punch compared to similar weapons developed in the 80's and 90s.

As far as the capability of the JSF's internal carriage being piddly, show me another stealth fighter that can carry more bombs, or that can carry as heavy or large a bomb as the GBU31

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 18:52

ShauryaT wrote:^^The last claim was by Saraswat that AMCA will be "delivered" in 12-15 years. This was in 2013.

Just what I said will keep on happening. Subramanyam says "after 2025". On BRF the date has been pushed to 2030

Shaurya, there is a little poem in Tamil that goes something like this

"Adi" endruthukke avale illai
Pillai pere Ramakrishna

Which is supposed to be a man singing "I have no woman yet. But I have decided to call my son "Ramakrishna"

After the HF 24 program died, wise people said - "Aircraft are built around existing engines. the HF 24 had no engine"

When the LCA was delayed interminably by weight issues, wise people said "Aircraft are built around existing engines. the LCA was designed without that"

Now, in 2015 our record in fighters is mixed - 50-50. One died. One lives

But our wise people have tols us repeatedly "Aircraft are built around existing engines". Respected Dr Subramanyam says in his interview:

The AMCA's configuration is finalised, and preliminary design is about to commence

Would you or anyone else be able to tell me which engine has been selected for AMCA?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 18:58

brar_w wrote:
Small diameter bomb requirement existed because of multiple reasons, the primary one was the fact that the technology in PGM's had advanced to a point where you could shrink CEP's considerably

What is this CEP shrinking technology? If it is not djinn tech please list it out and I will ask BRFites to read your post and see how much capability India has in this field. If India does not have it and the US has it, it means zilch to me. American dream floating in Indian minds is no way to develop in house capability

brar_w wrote: As far as the capability of the JSF's internal carriage being piddly, show me another stealth fighter that can carry more bombs, or that can carry as heavy or large a bomb as the GBU31

Great question. That means that AMCA's capability will be less than that of the JSF. It will be less than JSF level tech but it will come 20 years or more later. Good to know what we are planning to get in future

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jul 2015 19:11

What is this CEP shrinking technology? If it is not djinn tech please list it out and I will ask BRFites to read your post and see how much capability India has in this field. If India does not have it and the US has it, it means zilch to me. American dream floating in Indian minds is no way to develop in house capability

You can google advances in GPS, GPS/INS and multi-mode seeker weapons since PGM's were first introduced. India has its own satellite coverage and should be able to control and improve on its sat-based targeting over time. As far as dual mode and tri-mode seekers are concerned, they arent something that the US or the West holds a monopoly on even if they may field them earlier...The AMCA is a system for the future and fighters operate for decades (4-5 from past experience)..As far as the recent advances in PGM's developed and being developed in India, Karan can put something together a lot better than I can but there should be no doubt that the advances in PGM's will catch up with the rest of the world acquiring capability developed by those leading the research and development...

Great question. That means that AMCA's capability will be less than that of the JSF. It will be less than JSF level tech but it will come 20 years or more later. Good to know what we are planning to get in future

You do not need to have a larger or smaller capability compared to the JSF..Its a requirements thing..The US had the requirement for the 2000 lb bomb in a penetrating mission because they lost that capability with the F117 and they have a decent sized inventory of 2000 pound JDAM's and will be using them against hardened targets..The IAF may decide to build the bay around the 1000 pound category, and more missiles for example..Its all about what sort of penetrating mission the IAF wishes to perform with its strike fighter..

I don't necessarily disagree with your skeptical position vis-a-vis the AMCA, i would also have doubts given past timelines and the challenges that lie ahead..But when you are designing systems that won't show up for at least 10-20 years and won't go away for at least 3-4 decades beyond that you look towards the future and see where the technology you are developing now will go in that time-frame...You cannot ignore the fact that PGM technology is shrinking, becoming more accurate and proliferating at a lower cost and its not something that India is planning to not adopt going forward..The AMCA is not going to be in service in the 2020's and wont retire from service in the 2030's...It will show up in the 30's and won't go away till well beyond 2050...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Jul 2015 19:16

shiv wrote:
Would you or anyone else be able to tell me which engine has been selected for AMCA?

Yes, the all powerful K-10. A new engine in the 110-125 Kn class, combining the core of Kaveri and one of the engines from the west or Russia. My tech knowledge on engines is low and I have no idea, of how does one combine "cores" from separate companies. So, unless I see it flying, it is all a story to me.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 19:37

brar_w wrote: You can google advances in GPS, GPS/INS and multi-mode seeker weapons since PGM's were first introduced

Sorry brarji. I will be blunt. This is the worst cop out of a non reply I can read for a question.

The point is that all the capabilities to reduce CEP are already in place for the US but are a long long way off for India. This list of technologies is so long that you are not willing to take time out to write them but say "Google fo x,y and z"

No can do.

brar_w wrote: You do not need to have a larger or smaller capability compared to the JSF..Its a requirements thing

Really? Then why do you get upset when the JSF's capability is described as piddly? You seem to be quite happy that other aircraft have lesser capability.

Why worry? Make 60 kg bombs fly 100 km and hit a fly. At that weight only flies will die anyway

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 19:39

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:
Would you or anyone else be able to tell me which engine has been selected for AMCA?
Yes, the all powerful K-10. A new engine in the 110-125 Kn class, combining the core of Kaveri and one of the engines from the west or Russia. My tech knowledge on engines is low and I have no idea, of how does one combine "cores" from separate companies. So, unless I see it flying, it is all a story to me.

Shaurya if this is true, I think the core will be used but the rest of it will be new - if the plan works out. Not two cores. Do you have a ref for this K-10 thing using Kabini core? I seem to have failed to read the detail when I read something about the K-10. I though the GTRE was asking for an entirely new engine with no use for the Kabini core engine

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jul 2015 19:40

I will be blunt. This is the worst cop out of a non reply I can read for a question.

The point is that all the capabilities to reduce CEP are already in place for the US but are a long long way off for India. This list of technologies is so long that you are not willing to take time out to write them but say "Google fo x,y and z"

No can do.

I am not familiar with where India is with PGM's, and GPS/INS in general. As I said, Karan will be able to articulate the current programs, and the planned future ones a lot better.

Really? Then why do you get upset when the JSF's capability is described as piddly? You seem to be quite happy that other aircraft have lesser capability.

Because it has the largest bomb currently on a 5th generation jet, and I don't know whether the PAKFA can drop a GBU31 equivalent when it enters service.

Lesser capability is a relative thing when it comes to a fighter. Will an end user trade the 2000 lb bomb for more missile flexibility in the design phase? Those sort of trades you have to run sitting with the operator..The F-22 does not suffer anything just because it cannot carry the 2000 pound bomb becuase its strike ability is mostly SEAD/DEAD and that it performs perfectly well with the 1000 lb JDAM and the SDB. The F-35 however fills in the F117 shoes so for that program the 2000 lb bomb was critically important. You can design the bay as per your own requirements...The JSF carries the heavier bomb compared to say the F-22 that only makes it more optimized for its role, not necessarily a better design compared to the F-22. If the IAF wants to design a bay around a smaller bomb but more missiles, then that will be a more optimized solution compared to the F-35's bays..

You cannot compare an internal carriage capacity to an external carriage capacity of legacy fighters for many reasons the primary one being that your internal payload capacity is strictly for penetrating strike missions where in the 30s and 40s you will find it hard to even get access with your non stealthy jets...Fly high and deal with double digit SAM's and an IAD, fly low and shrink your range-range/payload and deal with rapidly advancing SHORAAD and MANPAADS, and be forced to literally fly over the target to drop a bomb given the range of glide bombs when launched from low altitudes..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2015 19:42

brar_w wrote:
I am not familiar with where India is with PGM's, and GPS/INS in general.

Thank you.

We are all familiar with what the US does and I am quite familiar with what India has.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 06 Jul 2015 19:49

shiv wrote:
brar_w wrote:
I am not familiar with where India is with PGM's, and GPS/INS in general.
Thank you.

We are all familiar with what the US does and I am quite familiar with what India has.

What India has is not as important for a program that won't be operational for at least a decade (10-20 years is more like it)..And won't retire till many decades past that..What India has int eh works, for future programs will be far more important in guiding the requirements that go into the AMCA. That's how most do it, you design something looking towards where air combat is going to go, not where it is...If India does not develop and mass produce SDB/SDBII/SPEAR/AASM like (or better) weapons by 2030-2035 (around the time the AMCA would do well to enter service) then there would be serious national security issues, because the Chinese (and through them the Pakistanis) will have the capability much earlier to that given the stuff they have been showing recently and as a result would be able to exercise a much better strike campaign with far fewer sorties...I don't think the IAF is planning on having the PGM:Non-PGM ratio remain unchanged over the next 15, 30 or even 40 years and that is really the sort of time-frame the AMCA is likely to be operationally deployed. In fact I expect the change to happen quicker, and with legacy platforms starting with a large PGM purchase in support of the Rafale while the indegenous programs take their time.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Jul 2015 20:12

shiv wrote: Shaurya if this is true, I think the core will be used but the rest of it will be new - if the plan works out. Not two cores. Do you have a ref for this K-10 thing using Kabini core? I seem to have failed to read the detail when I read something about the K-10. I though the GTRE was asking for an entirely new engine with no use for the Kabini core engine

At Aero India 2015, Tamilmani confirmed the possibility of combining Kabini Core-engine with joint venture parntner core engine I.e. with EJ 200, Snecma M88, NPO Saturn AL-31-117 or General Electric F414 to produce 110-125 KN of thrust .

https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/HAL_AMCA#Propulsion

Could be a misinterpretation of what the source said.

member_28108 · Post by **member_28108** » 06 Jul 2015 20:22

I cannot uinderstand the whole premise of this thread. We need to develop the AMCA even if delayed. The LCA was delayed but we have got a working plane which will be inducted shortly.What if we had the smae rona dhona 30 years abck. We would have no Tejas at all.Better late than never and yes research needs to be done and if we don't have such projects how will we ever improve ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Jul 2015 21:01

PN, This thread is early start to whines for AMCA! In fairness its to identify unobtanium powered requirements for AMCA to set expectations early on. Something for future forum members to gnash their teeth at.

Many of us won't be here by then.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 06 Jul 2015 21:19

With the J-20 already in the air, I would be happy if I see less in opensource and more in actual development than other way round. I hope they have done considerable work already on the AMCA and they go parallel on LCA Mk2 and AMCA. I would like India to pull off something parallel to Arihant in terms of secrecy... Element of surprise will boost overall morale than the over-promise and under-deliver norm of ADA/DRDO

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Jul 2015 05:50

prasannasimha wrote:I cannot uinderstand the whole premise of this thread. We need to develop the AMCA even if delayed. The LCA was delayed but we have got a working plane which will be inducted shortly.What if we had the smae rona dhona 30 years abck. We would have no Tejas at all.Better late than never and yes research needs to be done and if we don't have such projects how will we ever improve ?

Good points prasannasimha.

I have addressed all these points earlier in this thread but you have missed them. It is difficult to summarize 20 posts. Let me repeat some salient points

There are two issues that we need to look at and both these issues have played their role in the HF 24 saga and the LCA saga earlier and promise to come up again with AMCA

1. What does the air force need to maintain its operational readiness to defeat potential enemies in a war?
2. What does India need to do to develop new weapons and technologies?

Since you are a doctor like me, let me use a medical analogy

Operational requirements for the air force are like a hospital ward where patients are coming in at all times every day. All the beds, nursing care, medicines and surgical instruments need to be ready and waiting to be used no matter what comes through the door. A patient with a GI bleed can't be told "Come next week, our endoscope will be here by then. Our labs are developing them". The requirements are time critical and there is little scope for experimentation with new and unproven stuff.

Developing new weapons and technologies is like a research establishment. New molecules are developed and tested, first on rats, then pigs or dogs and then human volunteers - all the time comparing with controls. There is no time criticality. If the tests are incomplete by July 2015, we can continue them till July 2016.

Research for new things that we do not have must not be combined with the provision of services.

With HF 24 we tried to develop a new aircraft and an engine simultaneously. The engine failed and the aircraft was discarded prematurely. Su 7s were bought instead

With the LCA we tried to develop a plane with technology that we had yet to develop and an engine simultaneously. The engine failed and the aircraft was delayed so much by tech delays that operational readiness of the Air Force was not fulfilled. The Air Force had to extend the life of its MiG 21 that we take pains to unfairly describe as a widow maker. The Air Force also had to call for a new MMRCA aircraft because our research labs were unable to create LCA technologies fast enough to help the air force keep in readiness. We have sacrificed combat readiness of the air force to to develop in house science and technology. We have succeeded in part but failed on the engine. The labs are winning, but the air force is suffering'

Now come to AMCA, and I apologise to others because I will repeat
1. We have no engine. The research labs have called for tenders to either buy or develop an engine. If and when an engine is selected that will have to be fitted into the AMCA concept
2. We do not have testing facilities that are critical to any aircraft (even though we have muddled through for LCA). We do not have a supersonic wind tunnel. We no not have a vertical wind tunnel. We do not have radar anechoic test facilities for stealth. Promising the Air Force a working fighter without all these facilities is like performing a gastrectomy on an obese 120 kg patient with COAD and severe angina and myocardial dysfunction in a moffusil hospital. It medicine it would be called criminal negligence.

What we are doing is piggybacking our fundamental research with tall promises being made to the air force to meet operational requirements.

To add insult to injury - the aircraft that is promised at the end of this research saga is no great shakes. The AMCA will come at least 45 years after F117. It will not have an Indian engine. Its capability will be limited to what the Americans tell us is good for everyone.

Our labs may win again. But what will the air force get? And when?

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 07 Jul 2015 05:59

Viv S wrote: What resources? FGFA, MTA etc I can understand as a waste of developmental capital.

By limited resources, I not only meant money, but also people with relevant technical skills, test facilities, assembly lines, wind tunnels, dedicated computers for simulation and so forth. From all accounts, India has put more money on the FGFA than the AMCA so far - I suspect because FGFA is another "Technology Transfer" project but it more importantly because there are many technologies in which we are so far behind that we are unlikely to catch up in any meaningful times for operational readiness - hence the joint venture with those who are willing to let us in.

But the Tejas and Dhruv programs are clear and present evidence of the kind of cost-effectiveness that domestic programs deliver.

No question of that - but both the programs highlight important technological weaknesses as well - namely we import the gas turbines for both the aircraft, we still do not have our own Air combat radar and there is only ONE production agency with the capabilities to produce high performance aircrafts in any meaningful numbers. With limited technical resources available in the country, will you start of yet another program or finish what you have started and solve the key issues??

The AMCA needs to be seen in the same light as the Tejas. A cost effective fifth generation aircraft to help the IAF make up the numbers.

Given the kind of technologies that are required to be mastered to get a so called 5th generation aircraft, it will be anything but cheap! Yes I would rather have all that money being spent in India rather than paying through imports but the problem is that we simply don't have the kind of money for two 5th generation fighters (AMCA and FGFA).

My simple premise is this: We need a program as a follow up to the LCA to keep the capabilities that we have developed but before we do that,
1. We need to finish the LCA program - something at least 5 - 8 years away
2. Solve the "Engine" problem
3. Develop a parallel production agency (may be let them start with the LCA) and the entire ecosystem to take some load of HAL

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Jul 2015 10:08

For the less informed:
Here is here the engine could come from and why I've kept on advocating that we must
also develop an EJ powered prototype when developing LCA Mk-2.This way we will have an engine up our sleeve to avoid sanctions from the US and also determine which performs better.

http://www.indiandefence.wiki/threads/r ... amca.1729/
Rolls-Royce to offer Eurojet EJ200 engine to power India’s AMCA
Published February 27, 2015

Rolls-Royce is one of the three aero major which has been invited to submit a proposal for joint development of a new engine in the class of 110kN thrust to power India’s 5th-generation fighter jet have confirmed that they will be offering Eurojet EJ200 engine used on Eurofighter Typhoon fighter aircraft developed by EuroJet Turbo GmbH which is a multi-national consortium of which Rolls-Royce is partner .

On sidelines of Aero India 2015, EuroJet Turbo Company officials had talks with DRDO and ADA officials who are developing AMCA, EuroJet officials also briefed Indian officials about EJ2x0 a new engine Variant which according to their In-house R&D can generate 30% more power compared to the original EJ200 with a reheated output of around 120 kN from current 90kN developed by Eurojet EJ200 engine.

While it seems like General Electric which has supplied F404-GE-IN20 engines to power Tejas MK-1 and have won a contract to supply 99 F414-INS6 engines to power Tejas MK-2 will again be front runners to supply engines for AMCA Project, Eurojet Turbo which has recently reached a memorandum of understanding with Turkey on supply of a derivative of the EJ200 to be used in the Turkey “TFX ” program which is a twin-engine fifth-generation jet fighter to be developed by Turkish Aerospace Industries are also confident of their chances In India.

EuroJet Turbo also has developed and demonstrated 2D thrust vector control module which can be integrated into the engine as required in AMCA engine requirements

The Eurojet consortium is responsible for the management of production, support and export of the EJ200 engine system. Eurojet’s shareholders comprise Rolls-Royce (UK), MTU Aero Engines (Germany), ITP (Spain) and Avio Aero (Italy).

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2015 11:42

French engine Snecma is the best bet for AMCA and with Rafale Purchase we can get lic prod for M88 variant.

If we cut the supercruise thing the M88 variant would be fuel efficient modern engine and has good potential and can be a sanction proof engine till such time we get our own engine which is what we need

Wiki chacha on M88 says its demonstrated supercruise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snecma_M88

The demonstrator thereafter reached a speed of Mach 1.4 without afterburners, reached a height of 50,000 ft, endured load factors of -2g and +9g and flown at an angle of attack of 30 degrees. Within 14 months of its flight aboard the Rafale A, the M88-2 had amassed 75 hours on 65 flights.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jul 2015 14:10

Engines do not demonstrate supercruise, airframes demonstrate supercruise..Point being, the Gripen E can supercruise with the GE F414, while the Super Hornet cannot..The last I calculated the M88 would need about a 45-50% thrust bump to match the F414 EPE...That means either you have to trim weight margins, drag etc or just do with an extremely low T2W ratio, or of course pay a ton of money to the french to increase the thrust of the M88 by some 8100 pounds...Either way it will take time to design, implement and cost some money to get the sort of thrust increase and performance (its no easy task)..Play around with the aircraft and it will be a risky thing as basic 5th generation design is based on a pure "Combat Configuration"...You can't carry less fuel and a small load and super-cruise..The drag of the bays is present 100% of the time, and so is the added design weight of the fancy ducts, internal bays, all embedded sensors, and the extra fuel (internal+external for older jets has to be carried internally by 5th generation jets) you have to have the capacity for since you don't want to carry bags for obvious reasons..

It costs BILLIONS to get an engine out with those sort of improvements..in all honesty that significant leap in thrust (obviously thrust is not the only thing that they'd want to improve since there is quite a lot of new technology that can be incorporated to make the engine better) is essentially like going from an F404 to an F414..and the market size for Snecma is tiny, even factoring in future demand. The only two real possibilities here for that level of thrust are the F414 family and the EJ200, since both have a significant market presence that acts as an incentive for the OEM to share some cost and risk. In fact the EPE may be developed purely on USN funding if sequester lifts as is being hoped over the next 2 years or so. The EJ200 team will also look at enhancements although I don't think they need that much of a thrust bump for the Typhoon.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2015 14:29

It would depends on how effecient AMCA airframe would be and if M88 thrust would be enought to get it to supersonic speed without after burner , it may not need EJ or F series.

French are more dependent people as experience would suggest and its possible AMCA wont need supercruise but need a good fuel effecient engine for subsonic loitering capability which M88 is not to mention we have M88 with Rafale purchase.

The latest news seems to be international tender for AMCA engine so who ever offers more for lower buck would win the day

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 07 Jul 2015 14:57

It would depends on how effecient AMCA airframe would be and if M88 thrust would be enought to get it to supersonic speed without after burner , it may not need EJ or F series

I mean sure, if they can design an airframe with stealth, all internal sensors, a 2.5 ton capacity weapons bay, and enough fuel to execute a decent low-observable profile (I would imagine 13,000 pounds of fuel as a minimum) and still manage to keep weight and drag around the level of the rafale, then yes you can mange with the same engine or through a modest increase in thrust that gets the M88 to say around the F414 capacity...Good luck with that though..There seems to be good reason why ADA asked for a thrust class that even the F414 didn't readily have available...

The latest news seems to be international tender for AMCA engine so who ever offers more for lower buck would win the day

Yes an international tender is the absolute right way to go about it. However the point still stands, where is the market for Snecma to low ball development of an engine that adds around 8100 pounds of thrust just to stay competitive with the EPE? With the EJ200, at least the market is there given the larger number of Typhoons sold, and it may just be one more trick to keep the line alive through additional sales. Engine enhancement is not a straight forward process, and I really do not see Snecma doing in any way that is even remotely affordable...We are talking about a nearly 50% increase in thrust, and that is a bigger leap than the F404 to the F414 that cost hundreds of millions despite of a very significant order amount. The only way the M88 works is if the thrust requirement is all of a sudden reduced to make it more competitive...and that naturally has performance implications unless ADA and HAL can manage something that even the Americans and Russians cannot ie. produce a 2.5 ton internal payload, stealth supercruiser that is lighter and has less drag than a clean or modestly loaded 4.5 generation aircraft.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 07 Jul 2015 15:34

Austin wrote:French engine Snecma is the best bet for AMCA and with Rafale Purchase we can get lic prod for M88 variant.

If we cut the supercruise thing the M88 variant would be fuel efficient modern engine and has good potential and can be a sanction proof engine till such time we get our own engine which is what we need

The M88's thrust is far too little for an aircraft that will in all likelihood, be significantly heavier than the Rafale while sporting much greater drag. And taking a look at the failed effort to 'co-develop' the Kaveri with Safran (formerly Snecma), one is forced to conclude that they aren't really willing to share technology with us either.